Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. M/s Aryavart Gramin Bank, Lucknow

ITA 244/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 24423714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K SINGH
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Bad and doubtful debts; Revised return
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.244/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 2011 M/S ARYAVART GRAMIN BANK, A - 2/46, VIJAY KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAFCA9768D VS DY.C.I.T., RANGE - 1, LUCKNOW. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CIT, D. R. APPELLANT BY SHRI K. SINGH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY 03/07/2015 DATE OF HEARING 14 /08/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 02/02/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.7,50,00,000/ - IGNORING THE FACT THAT IF THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS NOT SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, ITS CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION, WHICH WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WOULD HAVE GOT ALLOWED. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. VS. CIT 343 ITR 270 WAS DELIVERED ON 17/02/2012 AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER AND THEREFORE, AT THAT POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE REVISED ITS RETURN OF INCOME 2 BECAUSE THE TIME AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR REVISING THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS UP TO 31/03/2012. 4. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 4.1 TO 4.4 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 4.1 I HAVE AL SO PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS AND JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS NOTED THAT THE PROVISION FOR NPAS OF RS.12.23 CRORE WAS MADE AS PER THE RBI GUIDELINES IN RESPECT OF DEBTS WHICH HAD BECOME BAD AND DOUBTFUL. THE PROVISION FOR NPAS WAS CHECKED AND VERIFIED BY THE AUDITORS BEFORE FINALIZING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE LOSS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT HAS REMAINED A LOSS EVEN AFTER MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION FOR NPAS. HENCE THERE WAS NO D ELIBERATE OR CONSCIOUS ATTEMPT ON PART OF THE APPELLANT TO EVADE THE PAYMENT OF TAXES. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE CLAIM INADVERTENTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT CAME TO KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROVISIO N FOR NPAS AMOUNTING TO RS.12.23 CRORE DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION AS IT WAS CLAIMING SEPARATE DEDUCTION OF RS.107.49 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. 4.2 THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF LITIGATION IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AS PER SECTIONS 36(1)(VII) AND 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. IN FACT IN TWO CASES THE MATTER HAS TRAVELLED UP TO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHICH ARE AS UNDER: A . SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. V. JCIT, 320 ITR 577 B . CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. V.CIT, 343 ITR 270 I ALSO FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T.N. TOWER FINANCE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V. JCIT, 280 ITR 491 HAS HELD THAT THE RBI DIRECTIONS CANNOT OVERRIDE THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE 3 INCOME - TAX ACT BUT T HERE ARE SEVERAL DECISIONS IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE RBI ACT, 1934 HAS AN OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. SOME OF THE DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER: A. TEDCO INVESTMENT & FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. V. DCIT, 87 I TD 298 (DEL.) B. CIT V. NAINITAL BANK LTD., 309 ITR 335 (UTTRANCHAL) C. CIT V. THE LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD. 55 DTR 277 (KER.) IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT UP TO AY 2005 - 06 BY VIRTUE OF FIRST PROVISO TO CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) THE APPELLANT BANK, BEING A SCHEDULED BANK WAS ALLOWED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY PROVISION MADE BY IT FOR ANY ASSETS CLASSIFIED BY THE RBI AS DOUBTFUL ASSETS OR LOSS ASSETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY IT IN THIS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING 5% OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH ASSETS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE BANK ON THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. ADMITTEDLY THIS REDUCTION IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR BUT IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, A NUMBER OF LITIGATIONS ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN SECTIONS 36(1)(VII) AND 36(1)(VIIA) MAKES THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE APPELLANT INADVERTENT AND BONA - FIDE. THE MISTAKE OF CLAIMING THE PROVISION FOR NPAS OF RS.12,23 CRORE AS DEDUCTION ON BASIS OF THE RBI GUIDELINES AND THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS.107.49 CRORE AS DEDUCTION SEPARATELY U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT HAS OCCURRED INADVERTENTLY DUE TO WRONG INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT WHEN THE MISTAKE CAME TO NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT IT REVISED ALL THE RETURNS VOLUNTARILY AND WITHDREW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY IT ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION FOR NPAS MADE IN VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4.3 IT IS NOTED THAT A WRONG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE DOES NOT ENTITLE THE AO TO LEVY THE PENALTY . IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER BONA - FIDE BELIEF, THOUGH DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT ATTRACT ANY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF W ILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AS THE ASSESSED INCOME REMAINED A LOSS EVEN AFTER DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION IS ALSO REASONABLE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE EXP LANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS BONA - FIDE AND ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED WERE DULY 4 DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN AS WELL AS BEFORE THE AO. SINCE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION WAS SUBSTANTIATED AND CAN BE CONSIDERED BONA - FIDE AND , ACCEPTABLE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE IMPOSED BY THE AO. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ( A ) CIT V. SHAHABAD CO - OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD, (2010) 322 ITR 73 (P&H) MAKING OF WRONG CLAIM IS NOT AT PAR WITH CONCEALMENT OR GIVING OF INACCURATE INFORMATION, WHICH MAY CALL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT.' ( B ) CIT V. SIDHARTHA ENTERPRISES, (2010) 322 ITR 80 (P&H) WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS [2008] 306 ITR 277 CANNOT BE READ AS IF LAYING DOWN THAT IN EVERY CASE WHERE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE INACCURATE, PENALTY MUST FOLLOW. WHAT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IS THAT QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UN DER SECTION 276C AND PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) HAD TO BE KEPT IN MIND AND APPROACH ADOPTED, TO THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE NEED NOT BE ADOPTED WHILE CONSIDERING THE LEVY OF PENALTY. EVEN SO, THE CONCEPT OF PENALTY HAS NOT UNDERGONE CHANGE BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID JUDGMENT. PENALTY IS IMPOSED ONLY WHEN THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF DELIBERATE DEFAULT AND NOT A MERE MISTAKE. THIS BEING THE POSITION, THE FINDING HAVING BEEN RECORDED ON FACTS THAT THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WAS SIMPLY A MISTAKE A ND NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX , THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE HELD TO BE PERVERSE.' ( C ) CIT V. HINDUSTAN COMPUTERS LTD, (2010) 322 ITR 88 (ALL) 'FURTHER FINDING, WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS THAT NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW HAS FOUND THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED IN SPECIFIC TERMS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ALL THE MATERIALS BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND A CONCLUSION HAS ARISEN AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GONE IN APPEAL. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT 5 THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME. RAVING FOUND SO, THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS BONA - FIDE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY SET ASIDE THE PENALTY ORDER.' ( D ) CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD ., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) 'WE HAVE, ALREADY SEEN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS JUDGMENT. READING THE WORDS IN CONJUNCTION, THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORREC T NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WE MUST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QU ESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE R ETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. . WE DO NOT AGREE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF ITS EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, WHICH DETAILS, IN THEMSELVES, WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE NOR WOULD BE VIEWED AS THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON ITS PART. IT WAS UP TO THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT ITS CLAIM IN THE RETURN OR NOT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT, IN OUR OPINION, ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 1(1)(C). IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF T HE LEGISLATURE.' (E) INCOME TAX OFFICER V. SANJEEV MISHRA, (2010) 38DTR 26 6 'VARIATION BETWEEN THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.10B VIS - A - VIS THE CLAIM ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT, OCCURRED SOLELY OWING TO BONA FIDE REASONS AS ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN, WHICH TAKES HIS CASE OUT OF THE AMBIT OF PENAL PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN S. 271(1)(C) - PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE.' (F) CIT V. ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT LTD., 191 TAXM AN 179 (DEL.) 'WHETHER SO LONG AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY MATERIAL FACT OR ANY FACTUAL INFORMATION . GIVEN BY HIM HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT, HE WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C), EVEN IF CLAIM MADE BY HIM IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, PROVIDED THAT HE EITHER SUBSTANTIATES EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM OR EXPLANATION, EVEN IF NOT SUBSTANTIATED, IS FOUND TO BE BONA - FIDE.' RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WAT ERHOUSE COOPERS (P) LTD. V. CIT, 348 ITR 306 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY FOR AN INADVERTENT AND BONA - FIDE ERROR IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS RIOT WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR FOUNDATION AND WAS SUBSTANTIATED AND CAN BE CONSIDERED BONA - FIDE AND ACCEPTABLE. PENALTY OF RS.7,50,00,000/ - IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. THE GROUN DS ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 6. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THIS IS THE MAIN BASIS OF THE DECISION OF CIT(A) THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF LITIGATION IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE FOR PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AS PER RBI GUIDELINES UN DER SECTION 36(1)(VII) AND 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. THIS IS ALSO NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IN TWO CASES, THE MATTER HAS TRAVELLED UP TO HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I.E. IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN 7 TECHNOLOGIES LTD. V. JCIT, 320 ITR 577 AND CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LT D. V.CIT, 343 ITR 270 . IN THIS REGARD, THIS WAS THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE THAT EVEN AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. (SUPRA), WHICH WAS RENDERED ON 17/02/2012, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE REV ISED ITS RETURN OF INCOME IN LINE WITH THIS JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE TIME AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR REVISING THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS UP TO 31/03/2012. REGARDING THIS ARGUMENT OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN TH E JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY HON'BLE APEX COURT ON 17/02/2012, THE TOTAL TIME AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR REVISING THE RETURN WAS ONLY 1 MONTH AND A FEW DAYS AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS MUCH TIME IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME DURING THIS SHORT PERIOD SHOULD BE VIEWED ADVERSELY. IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) AND 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AS PER RBI GUIDELINES WAS DEBATABLE ISSUE WHEN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE IS ALL RIGHT BUT IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE APEX COURT AND HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURTS TAKEN NOTE OF BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFER E IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 7. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NG TECHNOLOGIES LTD. [2015] 370 ITR 7 (DELHI). IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/11/2006 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS .189.44 LAC AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BUSINESS LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.123.07 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF FIXED 8 ASSETS. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 08/03/2008 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.33.63 LAC AND I N ITS REVISED RETURN, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE LOSS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS AS BUSINESS LOSS AND THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS CAPITAL LOSS. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT THE CLAIM OF BUSINESS LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON SAL E OF FIXED ASSETS WAS POSITIVELY INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF PRIMARY ACCOUNTANCY AND SINCE REVISED RETURN WAS NOT FILED VOLUNTARILY OR BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR PENALTY, PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E IS NOT OF A NATURE WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE POSITIVELY INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF PRIMARY ACCOUNTANCY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CLAIM IS DEBATABLE CLAIM BECAUSE SIMILAR MATTER REACHED UP TO HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CONNECTION WITH ALLOWABIL ITY OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AS PER RBI GUIDELINES AND THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE REGARDING THIS ASPECT. REGARDING THE SECOND ASPECT OF NON FILING OF THE REVISED RETURN, THIS JUDGM ENT IS OF NO HELP TO THE REVENUE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AT ANY POINT OF TIME AFTER FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/11/2006 BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS PER LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE ALSO, T HE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE FILED REVISED RETURN BETWEEN 17/02/2012 BEING THE DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND BEFORE 31/03/2012 ON THE LAST DATE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR FIL ING REVISED RETURN. WE HAVE ALREADY STATED SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THIS ORDER THAT THIS MUCH TIME OF ONE MONTH AND A FEW DAYS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TIME TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE REGARDING FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME BECAUSE SOME TIME I S NECESSARY EVEN TO A WATCHFUL PERSON TO KNOW ABOUT SUCH JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT AND THEN TO GET LEGAL OPINION ETC. AND THEN PREPARING THE REVISED RETURN ETC. AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT 9 BECAUSE OF NON FILING OF REVISED RETURN DURING TH IS SHORT PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND A FEW DAYS, ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS OF NO HELP TO THE REVENUE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14 /08/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF T HE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR