M/s. Charotar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Anand V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

ITA 2554/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0915 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DARSHAN BELANI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(1); 11

Judgement Text

, A - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . IT NO. 2554/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. CHIMAN SATHI BHAVAN, SUBHASH ROAD, ANAND- 388 001 PAN:AAB FC3 231 A VS. ITO, WARD-1, ANAND / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DARSHAN BELANI, A.R REVENUE BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R ! / DATE OF HEARING : 18/03/2019 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/03/2019 %& / O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY- JM : THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/09/2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)-4, VADODARA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATE D 18/02/2016 PASSED BY THE ITO WARD-1, ANAND UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(HEREIN AFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-4 , VADODARA HAS ERRED IN LAW ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DETER MINATION OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF I NCOME FROM BUSINESS. ITA NO. 2554/AHD/2017 A.YR. 2013-14 2 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-4, VADODARA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF T HE EARLIER YEAR. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-4, VADODARA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DECI SION OF THE AO IN TREATING BANK ADVANCE AS OTHER ASSETS AND DISALLOWING DEPREC IATION OF RS.11,81,560/-. 4. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADD , ALTER, AMEND AND/OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE APPELLANT IS COOPERATIVE BANK AND WAS ENGAGE D IN THE BANKING BUSINESS. IT HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOM E ON 09.10.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2013-14. THE SAME WAS FINALIZED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT OF 18.02. 2016 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 9,04,51,351/-. THE AO FURTHER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 11,81,560/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM UNDER THE ACT. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE MATTER THE LD. REP RESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ALL THE ISSUES AR E SQUARELY COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 2678/AHD/2015 BY AN ORDER DATED 28.11.2017. FURTHE R THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH BY ITS ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 ALLO WED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FAVOUR FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2014-15 IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ISSUES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OF PROVIDING CORPORATIVE BANKING CREDIT FACILITIES HAS BEEN SUST AINED BY VIRTUE OF THE SUSPENSION OF LICENSE ON 30.07.2003 BY THE CONC ERNED AUTHORITIES. THE INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED BY RECOVERING ITS OLD D UES FROM ITS MEMBERS IN THE FORM OF PRINCIPAL AND THE INTEREST A S WELL AND ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE . THUS EVEN AFTER THE CANCELLATION OF BANKING BUSINESS LICENSE SUCH A CTIVITY OF RECOVERING THE PRINCIPAL AND/OR INTEREST HAS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND BENEFITS AND RIGHTS THEREOF ACCRUING T O THE APPELLANT NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ITA NO. 2554/AHD/2017 A.YR. 2013-14 3 ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEP RECIATION ALLOWANCE, EXPENSES, SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD LOSSES AS ALSO ARGUED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, NO EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN ADVANC ED BY THE LD. DR CONTROVERTING THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE REPRE SENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, WE HAVE AL SO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. WE HA VE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IN DECIDING THE ID ENTICAL ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RELEVANT PORTION WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS: 4. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AS ALREADY A DJUDICATED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO. THE RELEVANT OP ERATIVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY RE FERENCE: '3. IT EMERGES FROM ASSESSEE'S PLEADINGS THAT IT RA ISES THREE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE(S) IN PRINCIPLE. THE FIRST ONE IS COMMON WHEREIN IT SEEKS TO CHALLENGE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES' ACTION TREATING ITS ALLEGED BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.2 ,36,05,880/-, RS.2,54,90,395/- AND RS.6,78,18,287/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2010 -11 AND 2011-12; RESPECTIVELY, AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THAN BUSINESS INCOME. WE ADVERT TO THE RELEVANT FACTS QUA THE INSTANT ISSUE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (BANKING SECTOR REGULATORY BODY) HAD SUSPENDED ASSESSEE'S LICENSE ON 30.07.2003. THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE DERIVED THE IMPUGNED INCOME BY RECOVERING ITS OLD DUES FROM ITS MEMBERS/CUSTOMERS IN THE FORM OF PRINCIPAL AS WELL AS INTEREST. WE NOTICE FROM IDENT ICAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE- ASSESSEE WAS FACI NG WINDING UP PROCEEDINGS THROUGH OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. HE THEREFORE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS ENGAGED IN BANKING BUSINESS SO AS TO BE ENTITLED FOR GETTING T REATED THE ABOVE INCOME AS BUSINESS. HE THEREFORE TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES AFTER CONCLUDING THAT THE ABOVE RECEIPTS OF INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AND ITS OWN ADVANC ES DURING LIQUIDATION PERIOD WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO BUSINESS RECEIPTS. 4. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMS THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTI ON AS UNDER:- '4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WEL L AS THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 05.09.2013, THE APPELLANT'S AR WAS REQUESTED TO FILE COPY OF OR DER APPOINTING THE LIQUIDATOR. THE SAME WAS FILED ON 05/12/2013. THE APPELLANT'S MAIN SUBMISSIO N IS THAT EVEN AFTER THE CANCELLATION OF ITS BANKING LICENSE, IT REMAINS A CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE S OCIETY AND HENCE, IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT THE LIQUIDATOR HAS BEEN APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 107-108 OF THE GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1961 AND ACCORDINGLY, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SOCIETY CAN TAKE PLACE U/S 11 0(1.0) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, FROM THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2007 OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETY, GUJARAT STATE, IT IS SEEN THAT ITA NO. 2554/AHD/2017 A.YR. 2013-14 4 NO SUCH RECONSTRUCTION AS PER SECTION 19 OF THE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT IS MENTIONED IN THIS ORDER. FOR READY REFERENCE THE ORDER OF THE REGISTR AR IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 'PREFACE:- THE CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ANAND DIST. ANAND IS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PROTECTED WITH UNSURANCE AND REGISTERED UNDER THE C LAUSE - 1961 OF GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. IT'S REGISTRATION NO. 4368, DATED 30-11- 1974. THE SAID BANK HAS DOING THE MANAGEMENT AS PER CO-OPERATIVE RULES, SUB-CLAUSES, BANKING REGULATING ACT-1949 PROVISION AND AS PER GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS TIME TO TIME G IVEN BY CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT AS WELL RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AS PER FIXED AND CHANGED. DUE TO CONSTRUCTIVE INSPECTION OF THE BANK AND SLOW RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING DUES OF THE BANK IT IS PUT IN CRITICAL CONDITION AND THERE IS NO POS SIBILITY TO REINSTALL IT AND AS PER THE ORDER DATED 2/1/2002 THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS DEPUTED IN THE BANK. THERE ARE MANY ATTEMPTS MADE FOR RECOVERIES OF THE SAID BANK EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO RECOVERIES MADE SATISFACTORY AND SO THAT IN THE REFERENCE OF ECONOMICAL CONITION OF THE BANK AS PER PROPER CONCLUSION IT IS RECOMMENDED TO THIS OFFICE TO PUT THE BANK IN DISPOSAL CONDITIO N, AND IN THIS REFERENCE THE SAID OFFICE MADE PROPER CONCLUSION AND DECLARE TO PUT THE BANK IN DI SPOSAL CONDITION BY THE LETTER DATED 23/7/03 OF THE INDIAN RESERVE BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI AND THE ORDER TO PUT THE BANK IN DISPOSAL CONDITION FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL FOR THE INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS AND SHARE HOLDERS BY GRANTED THE PERMISSION. IT IS HEREBY ORD ERED AS UNDER: ORDER: - I.A.S. KHANDHAR, JOINT REGISTRAR (AUDIT) CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETIES, GUJARAT STATE, GANDHINAGAR AS PER OBTAINED AN AUTHORITY TO ME AND I ORDER TO UPTO THE CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ANAND, DIST. ANAND AS PER CLAUSE - 1961 PROVI SIONS. AND HEREBY DEPUTE TO SHRI C.B. KOTECHA AS A DISPOSAL OFFICER, DISTRICT REGISTRAR C O-OP. SOCIETIES, ANAND AND PRESENT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ANAND, DIST. ANAND. (2) THE DEPUTED DISPOSAL OFFICER MUST TO COMPLETE T HE ACTIVITY OF CLOSING BANK WITHIN A THREE YEARS ACCORDING TO THE CO-OPERATIVE RULES CODE-114 (I) OF REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ANAND AS PER INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY TIME TO TIME. (3) THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR MUST TO TAKE CHARGE IMM EDIATELY OF DISPOSAL CONDITION. AND THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR SHALL PRODUCE THREE MONTHS REPO RT OF HIS ACTIVITIES TO THE REGISTRAR, CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GUJARAT STATE, GANDHINAGAR UPT O 15TH BEFORE COMPLETION OF THREE MONTHS.' 4.3.1. FROM THE ABOVE ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE BANK WAS IN CRITICAL CONDITION AND THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY TO REINSTALL IT AND ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PUT IN DISPOSAL CONDITION FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS FOR THE INTEREST OF THE DEPOSIT ORS. AS PER THIS ORDER ONLY, AN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS APPOINTED. 4.3.2 THUS, THIS ORDER FOR APPOINTING OF LIQUIDATOR U/S 115(1)(2) OF THE GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1961 IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19 OF THE GCSA, 1961 ARE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 19 RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETIES. - WHERE A COMPROMISE OR ARRANGEMENT IS PROPOSED (A) BETWEEN A SOCIETY AND ITS CREDITORS, OR (B) BETWEEN A SOCIETY AND ITS MEMBERS ITA NO. 2554/AHD/2017 A.YR. 2013-14 5 THE REGISTRAR MAY, ON THE APPLICATION OF THE SOCIET Y OR OF ANY MEMBER OR OF ANY CREDITOR OF THE SOCIETY, OR IN THE CASE OF A SOCIETY WHICH IS BEING WOUND UP OF THE LIQUIDATOR, ORDER RECONSTRUCTION IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER, OF THE SOC IETY. 4.3.3. THUS, FROM THIS PROVISION, IT IS EVIDENT THA T FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONSTRUCTION, A SEPARATE ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED BY THE REGISTRAR. THE APPELL ANT HAS NO WHERE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH AN ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED. HENCE, DURING THE FY 2009-10 , THE APPELLANT SOCIETY WAS UNDER LIQUIDATION ONLY AND HENCE, THE DECISIONS RELIED UP ON BY THE AO IN THE CASES OF INDRAPRASTH STEEL INDUSTRY LTD. (SUPRA), MORBI MERCANTILE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND VIJAYLAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. SINCE, NO BUSINESS HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT DURING THIS YEAR, HENCE, THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT IT CONTINUED TO BE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. BESIDES, THE AO'S CONCLU SION THAT ONCE THE BANKING LICENSE HAVE BEEN CANCELLED AND THE LIQUIDATOR HAS BEEN APPOINTE D , FOR WINDING UP THE APPELLANT SOCIETY, IT DOES NOT REMAIN A CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS AL SO CORRECT. 4.4. HENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, THE ACTION OF THE AO OF TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S AND NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION N/S SOP AT THIS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS UPHELD.' THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ABOVE FINDINGS PERTAIN ING TO FORMER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IN LATER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS AS WELL . 5. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE TREATED ASSESSEE'S ABOVE INCOME DERIV ED FROM ITS MEMBERS QUA PAST DUES UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME THAN THE ONE FROM OTHER SO URCES. HER FURTHER CASE IS THAT IT IS ONLY THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BANK WHICH HAS GONE IN THE HANDS OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. SHE PLACES ON RECORD THE STATE GOVERNMENT'S DECLARA TION UNDER CLAUSE 161 GRANTING EXTENSION UNDER SECTION 114 (1) OF THE GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE S OCIETIES ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL THEREAFTER PLACES STRONG RELIANCE ON THIS TRIBUNAL'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF ANAND URBAN CO- OP. BANK LTD VS. ITO IN ITA NO.273 L/AHD/2013 DECIDED ON29.0 5.2017 TREATING SIMILAR INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS. NEXT CASE LAW QUOTED IS HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF MORVI MERCANTILE BANK LTD VS. CIT, REPORTED IN / 1976] 104 ITR 568 (GUJ.). 6. THE REVENUE AT THIS STAGE STRONGLY SUPPORTS BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES' ACTION TREATING ASSESSEE'S ABOVE INCOME NOT UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS BUT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. MR. KABRA REFERS TO THE CIT(A)'S FINDINGS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS IN FACT DEPOSITED ITS ABOVE RECEIPTS FROM MEMBERS IN THE BANK AND THEREAFTER DERIVED THE IMPUGNED INCOME AS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION. HE F URTHER CLARIFIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE A DETAILED BIFURCATION OF ABOV E INCOME DERIVED FROM MEMBERS VIS-A-VIS INTEREST ARISING OUT OF ITS DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BA NK IN QUESTION. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE FAILS TO REBUT THIS FACTUAL POSITION. THE FACT HOWEVER REMAINS THAT THE ABOVE BIFURCATION OF ASSESSEE'S INCOME IS VERY MUCH NECES SARY FOR ADJUDICATING THE INSTANT ISSUE. THE ABOVE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION HAS ALREADY HELD A SIMILAR CO-OPERATIVE BANK TO BE ENTITLED FOR ITS INCOME RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS DURING THE SUS PENSION OF LICENSE AS BUSINESS INCOME. WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LARGER INTEREST O F JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONCE AGAIN RE- ADJUDICATES THE EN TIRE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW. IT SHALL BE ASSESSEE'S DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO FURNISH ALL P ARTICULARS OF ITS IMPUGNED BIFURCATION OF INCOME UNDER THE ABOVE TWO HEADS. THIS FIRST SUBSTA NTIVE GROUND IS TAKEN AS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ALL THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ITA NO.2678/AHD/2015 FOR A Y 2008-09 RAISING THIS SOLE ISSUE IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE ASSESSEE'S NEXT SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN LATTER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS SEEKING ADJUSTMENT OF ABOVE BUSINESS INCOME AGAINST CARRIED FORWARD BUSIN ESS LOSSES IS TREATED AS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AS POINTED OUT AT BOTH THE PARTIES BEHEST. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ITA NO. 2554/AHD/2017 A.YR. 2013-14 6 SAME AFTER FINALIZING THE ABOVE FIRST ISSUE. THIS P LEA IN LATER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS IS ALSO ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. THE ASSESSEE'S NEXT SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN ASSESS MENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 PLEADS THAT BOTH THE LOWER, AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING ITS DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS. 16,86,457/- AND RS.14,90,568/- AS DEDUCTION IN ASSE SSMENT AS AFFIRMED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES ARE A D IDEM THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO CONSEQUENTIAL TO OUR ADJUDICATION HEREINABOVE QUA FIRST ISSUE. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FINALIZE THE CONSEQUENTIAL COMPUTATION AFTER DETAIL ED ADJUDICATION ON THE FIRST ISSUE OF BUSINESS INCOME IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. THIS SUBSTANTIVE GRO UND IS ALSO TAKEN AS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. THE ASSESSEE'S THIRD SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AVERS THAT THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN TREATING CLOSING BALANCE DIFFERENCE OF ORIENTAL BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED THEREBY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 16,86,457/-. LEARNED COUNSEL FIRST OF ALL STATES TH AT THE CORRECT FIGURE HEREIN IS RS. 12,26,300/- THAN THE ABOVE ONE. SHE THEREAFTER TAKES US TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT FINDINGS WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUOTED ITS FAILURE IN RECONCILING THE CORRESPONDING BANK ACCOUNT DESPITE NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED. WE FIND THAT THE A SSES SEE THEREAFTER FILED ITS RECONCILIATION AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS. PAGE 19 OF THE CIT(A)'S ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 REVEALS THAT THE ASSES SEE SOUGHT TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN BANK ACCOUNT VIS-A-VIS BALANCE FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 6-07 ONWARDS TILL 2012-13. IT THEREAFTER PLEADED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSIT INSUR ANCE AND CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION ('DICGC' IN SHORT) STOOD DEPOSITED IN THE ABOVE ORI ENTAL BANK ACCOUNT FOLLOWED BY THE NECESSARY CHEQUES BEING ISSUED TO THE DEPOSITORS IN GUJARAT AS WELL AS OUTSIDE THE STATE. ITS CASE THEREAFTER WAS THAT THE ABOVE SAID CORPORATION 'S LETTER DATED 09.08.2004 HAD MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT LYING UNDISBURS ED WOULD BE REFUNDED BACK. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER REJECTS ALL THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AF TER CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT FOR ENTERTAINING THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 11. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO T HE RIVAL PLEADINGS REITERATING RESPECTIVE STANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE. IT H AS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE'S BANKING LICENSE STANDS SUSPENDED. IT IS RIGHT NOW B EING MANAGED BY AN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. WE THEREFORE OBSERVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF COHESION IN ITS WORKING SO FAR AS FILING OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE INSTANT ISSU E IS CONCERNED. THE FACT HOWEVER REMAINS THAT THE INSTANT ISSUE IS MORE A RECONCILIATION FAILURE ON ASSESSEE'S PART TO TALLY THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT WITH ITS BALANCE-SHEET VIS- A-VIS THE AMOUN TS RECEIVED/REFUNDED AS PER THE ABOVE DICGC DIRECTIVES. WE REITERATE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY REMITTED ALL REMAINING ISSUES INCLUDING THE MAIN ONE (SUPRA) BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUFFICE TO SAY, IT WOULD BE IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R FINALIZES THE INSTANT RECONCILIATION AS PER LAW. WE CAST THE ENTIRE DUTY ON THE ASSESSEE TO PLA CE ON RECORD ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS. THESE THREE ASSESSEE'S A PPEALS ITA NOS.2678/AHD/2015, 786/AHD/2014 & 186/AHD/2016 ARE ACCEPTED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ' 5. IN PARITY, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE I S, ACCORDINGLY, REQUIRED TO CORROBORATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. THE ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF AO. 6. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS. 1, 2 & 3 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH AS NARRATED HEREINABOVE WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER T O REMIT THE MATTER ITA NO. 2554/AHD/2017 A.YR. 2013-14 7 TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2014- 15. THE ASSESSEE IS, HOWEVER, DIRECTED TO CORROBOR ATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE LD. AO. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL DISPOSED OF FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. [ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25-03-2019. ] SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/03/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY %& '()*%)$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. + / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ,, - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. )./'' , / DR, ITAT, 6. /012 / GUARD FILE. %& / BY ORDER, 3 / ,4 (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD