Sarvoday Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Himatnagar V. The Dy.CIT.,S.K.Circle, Himatnagar

ITA 2923/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67740 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER SARVODAY NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD, POLOGROUND, PALACE ROAD, HIMMATNAGAR 383001 PAN:AABCT8391B (APPELLANT) VS DCIT, S.K. CIRCLE, HIMMATNAGAR- 383001 (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN , A.R. REVENUE BY: SRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 16-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-09-20 13 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD DATED 16-08-2010. ITA NO. 2923/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 I.T.A NO.2923/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO SARVODAY NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK VS. DCIT 2 2. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VI{CIT(A)} ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF AP PELLANT U/S 36(I)(VIIA) OF PRO VISION OR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT OF RS 356,693 ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT OUGHT TO HAVE MADE CLAIM ONLY THROUGH REVISED RETURN AND FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING CO TERMINUS POWER RELYING ON JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS CIT 53 TAXMAN 85 ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO RAISE ABOVE GROUND BEFORE HIM. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF CASE HE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED ABOVE LEGITIMATE AND RIGHTFUL CLAIM OF APPELLANT. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AT THE OUTSET LEARNED COU NSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY ASSESSEE BE FORE HIM WHICH READS AS UNDER:- APPELLANT PRAYS IN TERMS OF POWER VESTED U/S 251(1 ) READ WITH EXPLANATION, CIT(A)'S POWERS INCLUDES POWER TO ADMI T FRESH CLAIM AT APPEAL STAGE AND ON THAT BASIS A FRESH GROUND FOR D EDUCTION OF PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBT OF RS 356693 BE ADMITTE D AND DISPOSED ON FACTS AND MERIT . 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT SINCE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE FACTS IN RESPEC T OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALREADY ON RECORD, THE L D. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN V IEW OF DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER LIMITED . SINCE THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY HIM, THE MATTER IS RE STORED BACK TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUDICATING THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND AFTER GIVI NG PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A NO.2923/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO SARVODAY NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK VS. DCIT 3 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 27/09/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,