The Mayurbhanj Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mayurbhanj V. Principal CIT, Cuttack

ITA 267/CTK/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7539 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AMBIKA PRASAD MOHANTY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 201; 13; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM . / ITA NO. 267 /CTK/201 8 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 13 - 20 14 ) M/S THE MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPE RATIVE BANK LIMITED, AT/PO: BARIPADA, MAYURBHANJ VS. ITO, WARD - 1, BARIPADA ./ PANNO. : A AAAM 7185 J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMBIKA PRASAD MOHANTY , CA /RE VENUE BY : SHRI SUBHENDU DUTTA , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 07 / 1 1 /2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 / 1 2 /2019 / O R D E R PER L.P.SAHU , A M : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF PR. CIT, CUTTACK DATED 30.03.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 13 - 20 14 . 2. AS PER THE OFFICE NOTE/ORDER SHEET ENTRY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY 18 DAYS. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH AN AF FIDAVIT STATING THEREIN THE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO CONDONE THE DELAY. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE SAID APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR DELAY. CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ITA NO . 267 /CTK/201 8 2 CONDONATION OF DELAY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL IS HEARD FINALLY. 3 . THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE BANK FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2013 FOR THE A.Y.2013 - 2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.10,57,620/ - . THEREAFTER THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.8,47,18,770/ - AND MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. SUBSEQUENTL Y, THE PR. CIT INVOKING HIS POWER U/S.263 OF THE ACT HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AS THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED NECESSARY VERIFICATION IN THIS MATTER. THEREFORE, THE PR. CIT MODIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ADD RS.18,52,867/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. 4 . FEELING AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 5 . LD.AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE SELECTED THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION AND ISSUED SEVERAL STATUTORY NOTICES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS REPLIED AND FILED DETAILS AND EVIDENCES AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME THE AO HAS FRAMED ASSESSMENT. IT WAS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT ONCE THE AO HAS CONDUCTED THE ENQUIRY AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED WAS INADEQUATE AS PER THE ITA NO . 267 /CTK/201 8 3 PR. CIT, THERE IS NO CASE FOR REVISION U/S.263 OF THE ACT FOR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. THEREFORE, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PR. CIT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MA X INDIA LTD. 166 TAXMAN 188(SC) AND QUALITY STEEL SUPPLIES COMPLEX, 84 TAXMAN.COM 234(SC). 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF PR. CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PR. CIT HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS REVISONARY POWERS. LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE. 7 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE PR. CIT MODIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I NVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT OBSERVING THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY PROPER ENQUIRY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE AO OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION EXCHANGE & BROKERAGE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE OBSERVED THAT THE AO NOWHERE HAS DISPUTED OR DISCUSSED THE ISSUE NOR ANY ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO AND HAS REACHED AT ANY CONCLUSION. FU RTHER THE AO FIRST IS AN INVESTOR THEREAFTER HE IS AN ADJUDICATOR. THEREFORE, THE PR. CIT HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE REVISIONARY PROVISIONS ITA NO . 267 /CTK/201 8 4 PROVIDED U/S.263 OF THE ACT MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT, CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISSED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 23 /12 / 201 9 . S D/ - ( C.M.GARG ) SD/ - ( L.P.SAHU ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 23/12 /201 9 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA, SR.P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - M/S THE MAY URBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, AT/PO: BARIPADA, MAYURBHANJ 2. / THE RESPONDENT - ITO, WARD - 1, BARIPADA 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//