DCIT, BARMER V. The Barmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., BARMER

ITA 283/JODH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5190 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA R JAIN
• Keywords: Tangible material; Bad and doubtful debts; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 283 & 385 / JODH /201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 200 8 - 0 9 & 2011 - 12 ) DCIT, CIRCLE, BARMER. VS. THE BARMER CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., MAHAVEER NAGAR, BARMER (RAJ.) PAN NO. AAABT 2371 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. ALKA R. JAIN - DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 / 0 3 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 6 / 03 /201 6 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 , JODHPUR , BOTH DATED 16 /0 3 /201 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 & 2011 - 12 . 2. IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. 3 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN 2 ITA NO S . 283 & 285 / JODH /201 5 CASE IN ITA NO. 338/JU/2013 DATED 04/03/2014 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. A.R. HAS REPEATED HIS ARGUMENTS IN RELATION TO THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE G ROUND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED TRUE AND FULL FACTS AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THERE BEING NO FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE REOPENED AS IT WOULD AMOUNT TO A CHANGE OF OPINION AND ON THAT GROUN D IT CANNOT BE REOPENED. THEREFORE, THE REASSESSMENT CANNOT SURVIVE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAS JUSTIFIED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01/04/1989 THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT REOPEN THE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF HIS OPINION. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED FULL AND TRUE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A VIEW ON THAT ISSUE AND IT HAS TO BE PRESSED THAT HE HAD APPLIED HIS MIND TO THIS ISSUE. IN THIS REGARD THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS ARE APPLICABLE. 1) RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL VS. ITO PASSED BY ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH IN I.T.A.NO. 884/JU/2007 VIDE ORDER DATED 17/04/2009. 2) S. RANJITH REDDY VS. DCIT PASSED BY ITAT HYDERABAD A BENCH IN I.T.A.NO. 292/HYD/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 07/06/2013. THE REOPENING IN THIS CASE IS THUS, FOUND TO BE BASED ONLY ON THE CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO FURTHER MATERIAL HAS COME INTO HIS POSSESSION TO FORM HIS OPINION ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. HE MAY HAVE RELIED ON AUDIT REPORT OR NOT, BUT THERE IS NO NEW FACT WHICH CAN LEGALLY TRIGGER REOPENING OF A VALIDLY MADE ORDER. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE REASONS RECORDED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: - THE REOPENING WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SEC TION 143(3) ON DATED 14/12/2009 AN AMOUNT OF RS. 90,00,000/ - WAS ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR SALARY AND ALLOWANCES TO STAFF OF THE HEAD OFFICE AND THE PROVISION OR RESERVE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS NEITHER EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE PREVIOUS Y EAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 NOR THE AMOUNT WAS QUANTIFIED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY. 7. THE VERY PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REASONS MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT THERE ARE NO REASONS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 147 R.W.S. 48 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INTENDED TO REVIEW HIS 3 ITA NO S . 283 & 285 / JODH /201 5 ORDER AND NOT TO REOPEN THE SAME UNDER A VALID JURISDICTION ASSUMED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY ON RECORD. ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR ASSESSING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED. NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL, WORTH THE NAME OTHER THAN WHAT WAS AVAIL ABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14/12/2009 MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THIS PROVISION. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE NOTICE OF REOPENIN G IS BASED ONLY ON THE CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS INVALID. 8. BEFORE PARTING, LET US EXAMINE AS TO WHAT DOES CHANGE OF OPINION MEANS AND WHEN IT IS TO BE SO TREATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, ESPECIALLY, IN THE LIGHT OF DIVERGENT DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE PARTIES. THE DEPARTMENTS CASE IS THAT THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS SUPPORT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING REASONS OF ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME AS CORRECT AND THAT THERE IS A CHANGE OF HIS OPINION. THESE ARE THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1) KALYANJI MANVJI & CO. VS. CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 2) ESS KAY ENGINEERING CO. (P) LTD. VS. CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818 3) REVATHY C.P. EQUIPMENTS LTD. VS. DCIT & ORS. (MAD) 241 ITR 856 4) A.L.A. FIRM VS. CIT (MAD) 102 ITR 622 5) ITO VS. PURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR & ANR. (SC) 224 ITR 362 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A.R. HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1) CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL VS. S.P. CHALIHA [79 ITR 603 (SC)] 2) ITO VS. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS [103 ITR 437 (SC)] 3) SHEO NATH SINGH VS. APLPELLATE ACIT [82 ITR 147 (SC)] 4) INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY VS. CIT [119 ITR 996 (SC)] 5) GANGA SARAN AND SONS P. LTD. VS. ITO [130 ITR 1 (SC)] 6) CIT VS. SHIV RATAN SONI [217 CTR (RAJ) 222] 7) E. HILL & CO (P) LTD. VS. CIT 122 ITR 630 (ALL)] 8) TRANSWORLD INTERNATIONAL INC. VS. JCIT [273 ITR 242 (DEL)] 9) DESAI BROTHERS VS. DCIT [240 ITR 121 (GUJ)] 10) NARANG BROTHERS VS. CIT [173 ITR 409 (PAT)] 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS. THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE LD. D.R. HAS RELIED, NONE OF THEM IS DIRECTLY ON THE CHANGE OF OPINION. RATHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE LATEST DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CO NTROLS INDIA P. LTD VS. CIT REPORTED IN 314 ITR 62 [SC] AND THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. 4 ITA NO S . 283 & 285 / JODH /201 5 BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. 352 ITR 88 [DEL]. THESE DECISIONS JUSTIFY ALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS MADE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IS THAT THE A.O. HA INITIATED ACTION U/S 147 R.W.S 148 ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE CHANGE OF HIS OPINION. THUS, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O. IS BASE ON INVALID REASON. WHEN THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS INVALID, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF BECOMES BAD IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THIS APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED AND IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DECIDE GROUND NO. 2 OF THIS APPEAL. RESPECT F ULLY FOLLOWING T HE ABOVE QUOTED DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4 . IN GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 OF THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30 LAC. O N ACCOUNT OF INCREASED PROVISION FOR SALARY. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING , DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS SUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF IN ITA NO. 338/JU/2013 DATED 04/03/2014 . WE FIND TH A T THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT OF JURISDICTION IS INVALID , THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER BECOME S BAD IN LAW AND ACCORDINGLY , DID NOT ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL . 6 . IN THIS YEAR OF APPEAL ALSO, WE HAVE HELD IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS IN VALID AND THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION BY US. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 5 ITA NO S . 283 & 285 / JODH /201 5 DELET I NG THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INSURANCE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,07,902/ - AND FROM M/S. AGRI . INSURANCE COMPANY INDIA LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,49,986/ - , ON WHICH TDS WAS DEDUCTED. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 0 8. WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO VALID REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT , RE - ASSESSMENT MADE AS BAD IN LAW, HE DID NOT DECIDE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 9. AS WE HAVE CONFIRM ED THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BAD IN LAW, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 10. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 IS DIRECTED AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,65,00,000/ - . 11. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IF AMOUNT IS TRANSFERRED TO P ROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ACCOUNT , THEN IT SHALL NOT BE TAKEN AS BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF . THE LEGAL POSITION IS CLEAR THAT IF THE AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNTS OF VARI O US PERSONS, THE SAME WOULD BE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR RS. 1,65,00,000/ - . 6 ITA NO S . 283 & 285 / JODH /201 5 12. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE AOS STAND AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY THE DECISION OF H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE JALORE NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK LTD. FOR AY 2007 - 08 VIDE ITATS ORDER IN ITA NO.239/2011 DATED 10.01.2014. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE HONBLE ITATS ORDER CONTAINED IN PARAS 6&7 IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW: '6. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS VERY BENCH RENDERED IN MANY CASES. THE PROVISIONS FOR NPA ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS A PROVISION FOR 'BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT'. THERE A RE VARIOUS DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD INCLUDING THE CASE OF CIT VS. VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LIMITED, 330 ITR 440 (DEL), A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED REPORTED 320 ITR 577 (S.C.) HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. IN THIS CASE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THUS: - THE 'PROVISION FOR NPA' MADE IN TERMS OF THE RBI DIRECTIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EXPENSE FOR PURPOSES OF S. 36(L)(VII). THE SAID PROVISION IS FOR PRESENTATION PURPOSES AND IN THAT SENSE IT IS NOTIONAL. ( II I) THE ARGUMENT THAT A PROVISION FOR NPA UNDER COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTING IS NOT 'INCOME' HENCE ON THE BASIS OF 'REAL INCOME THEORY' IT CANNOT BE ADDED BACK HAS NO MERIT. THOUGH PROFITS HAVE TO BE COMPUTED ON COMME RCIAL PRINCIPLES AND ON REAL INCOME BASIS, THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. A PROVISION FOR NPA IS ONLY A NOTIONAL EXPENSE. FURTHER, UNDER THE EXPL TO S. 36(10)(VII) A PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. FOR THE SAME REASON, DEDUCTIO N CAN ALSO NOT BE CLAIMED U/S 37(1). (IV) THE ARGUMENT OF THE NBFCS THAT THE NON - GRANT OF BENEFITS U/S 36(L)(VII) & 43D TO NBFCS AND CONFINING SUCH BENEFITS TO BANKS, SFCS, HFCS VIOLATES ARTICLES 14 & 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO MERIT. AS REGARDS ART 14, THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF NBFCS AND BANKS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT ANY THEY SATISFY THE LEST OF 'RATIONAL AND INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA' HAVING NEXUS WITH THE OBJECT SOUGH TO BE ACHIEVED. /AS REGARDS ART 19(1), KEEPING IN MIND THE IMPORTANT ROLE ASSIGNED TO BA NKS IN THE ECONOMY AND THE FACT THAT NBFCS ARE VULNERABLE TO ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL UNCERTAINTIES, THE RESTRICTION PLACED ON NBFC BY NOT GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION SATISFIES THE PRINCIPLE OF 'REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION'. FURTHER, LAWS RELATING TO E CONOMIC ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH GREATER LATITUDE THAN OTHER LAWS.' 7. THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, WE HOLD THAT THE 'PROVISION FOR NPA' TANTAMOUNT TO BAD & 7 ITA NO S . 283 & 285 / JODH /201 5 DOUBTFUL DEBT AND IS ALLOWABLE UNDER TH E LAW. WE ORDER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AND ALLOW GROUND NO. 1 OF THIS APPEAL.' RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, JODHPUR, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, ADDITION OF RS. 1,65,00,000/ - IS DELETED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 13. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONCEDED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THAT THE ISS UE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS ON DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE . 15 . GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD INSURANCE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM M/S. AGRI . INSURANCE CO. INDIA LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS. 66,49,707/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE INSURANCE COMMISSION HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME WHEREAS TDS ON THE SAID COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,64,971/ - HAD BEEN CLAIMED. 16 . BRIEF FAC TS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TDS FOR RS. 6,64,971/ - WAS DEDUCTED UNDER SEC. 194D OF THE ACT BY M/S. AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO. O F INDIA LTD. ON PAYMENT OF INSURANCE COMMISSION OF RS. 66,49,707/ - . HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS SEEN FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TDS OF RS. 6,64,971/ - HAS BEEN CLAIMED , BUT COMMISSION INCOME HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. ON REPLY TO THE QUERY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INCOME IN THE NATURE OF INSURANCE COMMISSION FROM AGRICULTURE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD., FOR RS. 66,49,70 7 / - WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , BUT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013 - 14 . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING 8 ITA NO S . 283 & 285 / JODH /201 5 OFFICER AS PER 26AS DETAIL, THE INCOME OF INSURANCE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY BEEN CREDITED ON 31/03/2013 BY THE AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. , THEREFORE, THE INSURANCE COMMISSION OF RS. 66,49,707/ - IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 17 . O N APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT HAND. AS THE INSURANCE COMMISSION OF RS.66,49,707/ - HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT IN FY 2012 - 13 (AY 2013 - 14), I TS ADDITION HERE AMOUNTS TO TAXING THE SAME INCOME TWICE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THIS AMOUNT FROM THIS YEAR'S INCOME. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED . 18 . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS PER 26AS , THE CREDIT FOR TDS IS ALLOWED BY THE COMPUTER IN THE YEAR OF ITS DEDUCTION . THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOM E WAS SHOWN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AND TDS WAS CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . 19 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 20 IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON WEDNESDAY , THE 1 6 TH DAY OF MARCH , 201 6 AT JODHPUR . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D ATED : 1 6 TH MARCH , 201 6 . 9 ITA NO S . 283 & 285 / JODH /201 5 VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESS E E. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R . 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER .