Rajapalayam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, Virudhunagar

ITA 2627/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7881 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2626 & 2627/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. RAJAPALAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. 96-A, MUNDANGIAR ROAD, RAJAPAYALAM. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, VIRUDHUNAGAR. PAN:AAAAR3463M ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. P.RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 ND MARCH, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEV ED BY THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, MADURAI BOTH DATED 08.09.2014 IN ITA NO.66 & 65 /2013-14 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL ELABORATE IDENT ICAL GROUNDS IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE RELEVANT GROUND WHICH HE PRESSES IS AS FOLLOWS:- 2 ITA NOS2626 & 2627 /MDS/2014 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ALTERNATE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) AND 36 (1)(VIII) OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID GROUND WAS RAISED BEFO RE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), FOR T HE FIRST TIME; HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE WHIL E PASSING THE ORDER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK WHO HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION AGAINST PROVISION FOR BAD DEB TS COMPUTED AS PER RBI GUIDELINES WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF THE RBI GUIDELINES DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN TAXATION MATTERS. ON APPEAL, AFTER EXAMININ G THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) AND 36 (1)(VIII) OF THE A CT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3 ITA NOS2626 & 2627 /MDS/2014 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CITING THE DECISION OF THE CASE GOE TZ (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 157 TAXMANN.1 (SC), WHEREI N IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN MAKE A CLAIM BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY BY FILING A REVISED RETURN A ND NOT OTHERWISE. FURTHER LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T CLAIMED THIS DEDUCTION BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE EARLIER OCCASION, THIS GROUND WILL NOT SURVIVE AT T HIS STAGE. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE MA TERIALS ON RECORD, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AFORESAID GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) AND 36(1)(VIII) O F THE ACT ARE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN TH E ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, INVOKING OUR INHERENT POWERS, WE HEREBY REMIT THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER W ITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD 4 ITA NOS2626 & 2627 /MDS/2014 AND IF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IS FOUND TO BE CORRE CTLY CLAIMED ALLOW THE DEDUCTION AND IF THE CLAIM IS NOT FOUND T O BE CORRECT THEN PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER MERIT AND AS PER LAW. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREI NABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 2 ND MARCH, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 2 ND MARCH, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF