A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Midnapore, Midnapore V. Vidyasagar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Midnapore

ITA 2731/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9518 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALLONG YADEN ACIT SRDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2731/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 ACIT, CRICLE-1, OFFICE OF JCIT, RANGE- 1, AMARVATI RAJA N.L. KHAN ROAD, KERANITOLA, MIDNAPORE- 721 101 / V/S . VIDYASAGAR CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., CHOTA BAZAR, MIDNAPORE, DIST. PASCHIM MEDINIPUR-721 101 [ PAN NO.AAAAV 0691 B ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ACIT-SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 04-01-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25-01-2017 /O R D E R PER S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2013 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXVI, KOLKATA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11. 2. THE REVENUE QUESTIONED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN AL LOWING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE MADE UNDER THE HEAD PROVISION FOR OVERDUE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO 2,45,89,189/-. THEREFORE, THE SOLE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APP EAL IS AS TO WHETHER CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THA T THE SAME ISSUE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF KOLKAT A IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y 2009-10 IN ITA NO.311/KOL/2013 DATED 08.01.2016 WHI CH IS PLACED ON RECORD. ITA NO.2731/KOL/2013 A.Y.2010-11 ACIT CIR-1 MID. VS. V.C.CO-OP BANK LTD. PAGE 2 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A C O-OPERATIVE BANK AND MADE PROVISION FOR OVERDUE INTEREST WHICH IS THE AMOUNT DOUBTFUL OF RECOVERY AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISION FOR OVERDUE INTEREST AND PROVISION FOR NPA ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AND SUCH DEDUCTION IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ADDED T HE SAME AMOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY RELYING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGY LTD. VS. JCIT, COIMBATORE REPORTED IN 320 ITR 377 (SC). LD. DR FOR THE REVENU E RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL S AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT AS RIGHTLY POINTED BY LD. AR THAT SAID ISSUE W AS DECIDED BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 08.01.2016 WHEREIN THE BENCH DECID ED THE ISSUE BY RELYING ON IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. NADIA DISTRICT CENT. COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. IN ITA NO. 1851/KOL/2012 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. WE FURTHER FIND THAT SIMILAR ISS UE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KICM INVESTMENT LTD. AND THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS PLEA SED TO HOLD THAT INTEREST ON NON-PERFORMING ASSETS WAS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THE SAME WAS CHALLENGED BY REVENUE BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE SAID SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION W AS DISMISSED ON 12.01.2009 IN CC NO. 29 OF 2009 AFFIRMING THE VIEW OF HON'BLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSE SSEE TOWARDS THE CREATION OF PROVISION OF OVERDUE INTEREST IS ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTI ON AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- 3.1 AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS MATTER IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF A BENCH, ITAT, KOLKATA DATED 1 ST AUGUST, 2014 IN ITA NO. 1851/KOL/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF ACIT-VS- NADIA DISTRICT CENT COOPERATI VE BANK LTD. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 4. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KICM INVESTMENT LTD. IN ITA NO. 391 OF 2007 , WHICH WAS DULY AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT. MOREOVER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE THAT ONLY G ROUSE OF THE REVENUE ITA NO.2731/KOL/2013 A.Y.2010-11 ACIT CIR-1 MID. VS. V.C.CO-OP BANK LTD. PAGE 3 WAS THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF RUL E 46 OF THE RULES. WE FIND NOTHING AND ONCE SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH LD. SR. DR COULD NOT STATE WHAT IS THE VIOLATION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES, AND FACTUALLY THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KICM INVESTMENT LTD., SUPRA, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT AND THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IN VIEW OF CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF KOLKATA IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED. THUS, GROUND RAISED IN THIS REGARD BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25/01/2017 SD/- SD/ - ( ! ) (# $ ! ) (P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS % &' - 25/01/2017 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ACIT CIRCLE-1, OFFICE OF THE JCIT, RANGE -1, AMARVATI RAJA N.L. KH AN ROAD, KERANITOLA, MIDNAPORE-721 101 2. /RESPONDENT-VIDYASAGAR CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., CH OTA BAZAR, MIDNAPORE DIST. PASCHIM M EDINIPUR-721 101 3. &&() + / CONCERNED CIT 4. + - / CIT (A) 5. ,-. $$() , () / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. ./0 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / & (),