DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy V. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

ITA 3197/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6616 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARATH
• Keywords: Business income; Earning of tax free income; Tax effect; Revised return; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 72; 22; 28

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , ' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 54/CHNY/2018 # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., REGISTERED & CENTRAL OFFICE, ERODE ROAD, KARUR 639002. PAN : AAACT 3373J V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), TIRUCHIRAPALLI. ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) /. ITA NO. 3197/CHNY/2017 # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), TIRUCHIRAPALLI 620 001. V. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., REGISTERED & CENTRAL OFFICE, ERODE ROAD, KARUR 639002. PAN : AAACT 3373J ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI S. BHARATH, CIT #+ ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. ANANTHAN, CA MRS. LALITHA RAMESWARAN, CA ) /DATE OF HEARING : 15.10.2019 ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.01.2020 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COM MISSIONER OF :-2-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, IN ITA NO. 59/CIT(A)-1/TRY/ 2015-16 DATED 31.10.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THEREF ORE, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSE THEM BY THIS COM MON ORDER. 2. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., THE ASSESSEE, IS A BA NKING COMPANY IN PRIVATE SECTOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.0 9.2012 ADMITTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 461.22 CRORES. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED TWO REVISED RETURNS VIZ., ON 07.02.2013 WITH A TOTAL IN COME OF RS. 490.07 CRORES AND ON 26.03.2014 ADMITTING RE-REVISED TO TAL INCOME OF RS. 481.23 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) ON 31.03.2015 MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS/ DISA LLOWANCES. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED AGAINST CERTAIN ISSUES ON WHICH DISMISSAL AND ENHANCEME NT WERE MADE AND ON CERTAIN ISSUES WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT D ECIDED THE ISSUE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ABOVE APPEAL. SIMILARLY, AGGRIE VED AGAINST THOSE ISSUES WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE FILED ITS ABOVE CROSS APPEAL. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE SECURITIES O F THE ASSESSEES BANK ARE HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE, THE LD. CIT (A) ER RED IN DISALLOWING AND :-3-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 ALSO ENHANCING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A TO RS . 47,78,765/-, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S. 14A WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDIT URE FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN DISALLO WING THE SUM U/S. 14A WITHOUT RECORDING THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE BAN K HAD ACTUALLY INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN EARNING THE TAX FREE INCOM E. FURTHER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED DUE SATIS FACTION FOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/S. 14A. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE IN 2017 (4) TMI 56 6 ITAT CHENNAI, 72 ITR (TRIB) 26 (CHENNAI) (2019) AND DECISION RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF CORPORATION BANK IN ITA NO. 1352/B/2013 DATED 11.03 .2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. FURTHER, THE LD. AR RELIE D ON THE CALCUTTA ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS UCO BANK IN IT A NO. 1615/KOL/2016 & CO 51/KOL/2018 DATED 21.08.2018 FOR AY 2012-13 AND THE DELHI ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB NATIO NAL BANK VS CIT, RNAGE-14, NEW DELHI IN (2019) (1) TMI 689-ITAT DELH I AND ITA NOS. 4253 & 2236/DEL/2011, ITA NOS. 1788 & 4722/DEL/2012 ; ITA NOS. 2406/DEL/2013; ITA NOS. 2469/DEL/2014; ITA NOS. 246 9/DEL/2011; ITA NO. 4718/DEL/2012 AND ITA NOS 2966/DEL/2013 DATED 0 9.01.2019, WHEREIN THE RESPECTIVE BENCHES, APPLYING THE APEX C OURT DECISION IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD., AND PR. CIT VS STATE BANK O F PATIALA ETC., HELD :-4-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IS PERMISSIBLE IN TER MS OF RULE 8D IN CASE OF ASSESSEES ENGAGED IN BANKING BUSINESS. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CI T(A) DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT ON THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS. AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2012, THE TOTAL INVES TMENT HELD BY THE BANK WAS 10,506.09 CRORES. THE AVERAGE VALUE OF IN VESTMENT ACCORDING TO RULE 8D(2)(III) WAS 90.12 CRORES. IN THE ASSESS EES CASE TAX FREE INCOME OF RS. 0.92 CRORES AND INVESTMENTS HAVE ALSO YIELDED TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 715.32 CRORES. SINCE, THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT OF THE ASSESSEES BANK IS MANAGING THIS INVESTMENTS, WHICH IS YIELDING BOTH TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE INCOME, THE CIT(A) REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE TREASU RY DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED SUCH SUM AT RS. 2.75 CRORES. TH E LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE PROPORTION OF INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES AND PREFERENTIAL SHARES AT 103.22 CRORES IN COMPARISON TO TOTAL INVE STMENT OF RS. 10,506.03 CRORES, WHICH WORKS OUT TO 0.99 CRORES A S ON THE LAST DATE OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT NO DIRECT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TO EA RN, EXEMPT INCOME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED, ON ASSESSEES OWN ADMISSION THA T IT HAS INCURRED RS. 2.75 CRORES ON THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT WHICH WA S ENTRUSTED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MANAGING THE ENTIRE INVESTMEN T PORTFOLIO. :-5-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE AN ENHANCEMENT NOTIC E TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING ITS PLEA, HELD THAT SINCE THE PRO PORTION OF INVESTMENTS GIVING RAISE TO EXEMPT INCOME TO THE TOTAL INVESTME NT WAS TO THE TUNE OF 0.99%, THE DISALLOWABLE PORTION UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) WORKED OUT AT RS. 2,72,366/- AND HENCE HE DIRECTED THE AO TO DISALLOW ANCE THIS SUM. RELYING ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE O F CIT VS WALFORT STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD., (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) AND GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS DCIT AND ANOTHER (2017) 3 94 ITR 449 (SC), THE CIT(A) HELD THAT SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE IN T HE ASSESSEES CASE AND HENCE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A R.W.R . 8D(2)(II) BY THE AO ALSO. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ENHANCED THE DIS ALLOWANCE. THUS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SINCE THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DRAWN DUE SATISFACTION U/. 14A R.W.R. 8D, THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D HAS NO MERIT. HOWEVER, ON THE MERITS OF THE DISALLOWANCE, THE RELEVANT PORTIO N OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE RENDERED IN ITA NOS . 2325 & 2326/MDS/2016 AND ITA NO. 2433 & 2649/MDS/2016 DATE D 29.03.2017 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS EXTRACTED AS UNDE R: 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SHARES/UNITS HELD BY IT WHETHER CL ASSIFIED AS INVESTMENT OR STOCK-IN-TRADE IN BALANCE SHEET, THAT HAS TO BE C ONSIDERED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE ONLY :-6-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 FOR TAX PURPOSE, AND SECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAD NO APPLICATION. CIRCULAR NO.18 DATED 02.11.2015 OF CBDT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- SUBJECT: INTEREST FROM NON-SLR SECURITIES OF BANKS REG. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD THAT IN THE CASE OF BANKS, FIELD OFFICERS ARE TAKING A VIEW THAT, EXPENSES RELATABL E TO INVESTMENT IN NON- SLR SECURITIES NEED TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 57(I) OF T HE ACT AS INTEREST ON NON-SLR SECURITIES IS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. CLAUSE (ID) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 56 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST ON SECURITIES SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME- TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IF, THE INCOME IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AN D GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. 3. THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NAWA NSHAHAR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. [2007] 160 TAXMAN 48(SC), THE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE INVESTMENTS 7 I.T.A. NOS.2325 & 2326/MDS/16 I.T .A. NOS.2433 & 2649/MDS/16 MADE A BANKING CONCERN ARE PART OF THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. THEREFORE, THE INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH INVESTMENTS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING FALLING UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. 3.2 EVEN THOUGH THE ABOVEMENTIONED DECISION WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/BANKS CLAIMING DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT, THE PRINCIPLE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO ALL BANKS/COMMERCIAL BANKS, TO WHICH BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 APPLIES. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE MATTER, THE ISSUE IS WELL SETTLED. ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD HAS D ECIDED THAT NO APPEALS MAY HENCEFORTH BE FILED ON THIS GROUND BY THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND APPEALS ALREADY FILED, IF ANY, ON THIS GROUND BEFOR E COURTS/TRIBUNALS MAY BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED UPON. THIS MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL CONCERNED. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) CBDT ITSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE LINE OF THINKING THA T INCOME FROM INVESTMENT MADE BY A BANKING CONCERN IS PART OF ITS BUSINESS O F BANKING TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. DIRECT RESULT O F THIS VIEW IS THAT SUCH INVESTMENTS WOULD BE ONLY A PART OF STOCK-IN-TRADE. IN OUR OPIN ION, HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS IN ITS BALANCE SHEET PR EPARED UNDER BANKING REGULATION ACT MAY NOT BE RELEVANT WHEN THE INCOME THEREFROM I S TREATED AS A PART OF BUSINESS PROFIT AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THESE INVESTME NTS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING 8 I.T.A. NOS.2325 & 2326/MDS/16 I.T.A. NOS. 2433 & 2649/MDS/16 DIVIDEND. :-7-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 AT PARA 17 OF ITS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF STATE BAN K OF PATIALA (SUPRA), HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- 17. UNDER SECTION 14A, AN EXPENDITURE CAN BE DISAL LOWED ONLY IF IT IS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME EXEM PT FROM TAX. THE DIVIDEND OR INTEREST FROM THE ASSESSEES STOCK-IN-TRADE I.E. TH E SECURITIES WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX IN VIEW OF SECTIONS 10(15)(IV)(H),(34) AND (35). THIS WAS INCIDENTAL TO ITS BUSINESS OF BANKING. THE BUSINESS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE TRADING IN THE SECURITIES IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS OR PROFESSION. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO STOCK-IN-TRADE ARISING AS A RESULT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND DEBENTURES IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTIONS 28 TO 37. 9. ONCE HOLDING OF INVESTMENT WAS CONSIDERED INCIDE NTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR OPINION, SECTION 14A OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED. PARA 26 OF THE VERY SAME JUDGMENT IS ALSO RELEVANT AND IT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 26. WHAT IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE IN THE ABOVE JUDGM ENT ARE THE OBSERVATIONS EMPHASIZED BY US. EACH OF THEM EXPRESSLY STATES THA T WHAT IS DISALLOWED IS EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME. THE W ORDS IN RELATION TO IN SECTION 14A MUST BE CONSTRUED ACCORDINGLY. THUS, THE WORDS IN RELATION TO APPLY TO EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE OBSERVATION IS THIS. WE HAVE HELD THAT THE SECURITIES IN QUESTION CONSTI TUTED THE ASSESSEES STOCK- IN-TRADE AND THE INCOME THAT ARISES ON ACCOUNT OF T HE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SECURITIES IS ITS BUSINESS INCOME AND IS BROUGHT TO TAX AS SUCH. THAT INCOME IS NOT EXEMPT FROM TAX AND, THEREFORE, 9 I.T.A. NOS.2325 & 2326/MDS/16 I.T.A. NOS.2433 & 2649/MDS/16 THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TH ERETO DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 14A. NOW, THE DIVIDEND AND INTEREST ARE INCOME. THE QUES TION THEN IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE INCURRED ANY EXPENDITU RE AT ALL OR ANY PART OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE EXEMPT INCOME VIZ. DI VIDEND AND INTEREST THAT AROSE OUT OF THE SECURITIES THAT CONSTITUTED THE ASSESSEES S TOCK-IN-TRADE. THE ANSWER MUST BE IN THE NEGATIVE. THE PURPOSE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID SECURITIES WAS NOT TO EARN INCOME ARISING THEREFROM, NAMELY, DIVIDEND AND INTE REST, BUT TO EARN PROFITS FROM TRADING IN I.E. PURCHASING AND SELLING THE SAME. IT IS AXIOMATIC, THEREFORE, THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS W AS INCURRED FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE STOCK-INTRADE AND, THEREFORE, TOWARDS E ARNING THE BUSINESS INCOME FROM THE TRADING ACTIVITY OF PURCHASING AND SELLING THE SECURITIES. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE SECURITIES YIELDED ANY INCOME ARISING THEREFROM , SUCH AS, DIVIDEND OR INTEREST, NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAME. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR INVESTMENTS WHICH :-8-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 WERE CONSIDERED AS PART OF STOCK-IN-TRADE FOR TAX P URPOSES. SUCH DISALLOWANCE THEREFORE STANDS DELETED. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS DECISION IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK IN ITA NO 1615/KOL /2016 & CO 51/KOL/2018 DATED 21.08.2018 FOR AY 2012-13 AND THE DELHI BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS CIT , RNAGE-14, NEW DELHI IN (2019) (1) TMI 689-ITAT DELHI AND ITA NOS. 4253 & 2236/DEL/2011, ITA NOS. 1788 & 4722/DEL/2012; ITA N OS. 2406/DEL/2013; ITA NOS. 2469/DEL/2014; ITA NOS. 246 9/DEL/2011; ITA NO. 4718/DEL/2012 AND ITA NOS 2966/DEL/2013 DATED 0 9.01.2019, ON DUE ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN THE CASE MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS CIT 402 ITR 640 INCLUDING THE DE CISION OF PR. CIT VS STATE BANK OF PATIALA ETC., HELD THAT NO DISALLOWAN CE U/S. 14A IS PERMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF RULE 8D WHERE THE ASSESSEE S ARE ENGAGED IN BANKING BUSINESS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF BANKING, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS W E HOLD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S. 14A AND HENCE ALLOW T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED I N DISALLOWING AND ALSO ENHANCING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSEES C LAIM U/S. 36(1)(VII) BY SUBSTITUTING THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM ELIG IBLE BUSINESS :-9-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 516.83 CRORES FOR ARRIVING AT TH E DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII). THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE BANK COMPRISES INCOME FROM V ARIOUS SOURCES OF BUSINESS NOT RELATED TO ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND FAILE D TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SEE IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. IN THIS REGARD, HE RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CANARA BANK (2017 ) 60 ITR (TRIB) 1 (BENGLURU). 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO THAT IT BEING A BANKING COMPANY ENGAG ED IN PROVIDING LONG TERM FINANCE TO INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL AND D EVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES IN INDIA (CALLED ELIGIBLE BUSINESS) IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF 20% OF THE PROFITS FROM THIS ELI GIBLE BUSINESS. SINCE, THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED METHOD IN THE INCOME TAX ACT , FOR ARRIVING AT THE PROFITS FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE BA NK HAD ADOPTED A METHOD IN WHICH CASH PROFIT WAS ARRIVED AT AND PROP ORTIONATE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII). WHILE MA KING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO RECALCULATED THE PROFIT FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINE SS AND ALLOWED ONLY RS. 28,21,04,781/- AS DEDUCTION AGAINST THE CLAIM O F RS. 35 CRORES MADE :-10-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK MADE ITS FIRST CLAIM U/S. 36(1)(VII) IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ADOPTED DIFFERENT METHODS FOR COMPUTATION OF ITS EL IGIBILITY U/S. 36(1)(VII) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12. DURING THIS ASSESSMENT YEARS, IT CHANGED ITS EARLIER METHOD (OL D METHOD) AND ADOPTED A DIFFERENT METHOD (NEW METHOD). THEREFORE , THE LD. CIT(A) REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A COPY OF COMPUTATION STATEMENT ADOPTING THE OLD METHOD, HE FOUND THAT AS PER THE NEW METHOD , THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION AT RS. 35.93 CRORES. HOWEVER, UN DER THE OLD METHOD IT WORKED OUT TO JUST RS. 25.82 CRORES. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT, PRIME FACIE, THE ASSESSEE HAD INFLATED ITS CL AIM BY ADOPTING DIFFERENT METHOD OF COMPUTATION FOR THIS CLAIM IN C OMPARISON TO THE METHOD ADOPTED IN THE EARLIER YEARS VIZ., AY 2010-1 1 & 2011-12 AND THE NEW METHOD DOES NOT CORRECTLY REFLECT THE PROFITS F ROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) ISSUED NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED COMPUTATION CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII) AT RS. 34,41,12,325/- ONLY AS AGAINST RS . 35,93,12,994/- CLAIMED ORIGINALLY. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) FOU ND THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE BANK, THE COMPUTATION AND THE CONSEQUENT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII) AS PER ITS REVIS ED COMPUTATION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) R. W.S. 29 APART FROM BEING UNSCIENTIFIC. THEREFORE, HE RECOMPUTED THE D EDUCTION AT RS. :-11-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 22.94 CRORES ONLY. THUS, HE ENHANCED THE INCOME AT RS. 5,26,32,261/-. THUS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 8. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS CLEAR F ROM THE ABOVE, THAT THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED A PARTICULAR METHOD OF ACCO UNTING FOR CLAIMING THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT T O ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12. THE REVENUE HAS NOT ACCEPTED TH E METHOD EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. ULTIMATELY, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE ITAT HAS REMITTED THE MATT ER BACK TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12. WHILE, THIS ISSUE IS PEND ING BEFORE THE AO FOR THE AYS 2012-13, THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE APP EAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS AY I.E., 2012-13, OBTAINED CERTAIN DETAILS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED A DIFFERENT METHOD OF COMPUTAT ION FOR ARRIVING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII) AND THEREFORE, HE RECOMPU TED THE DEDUCTION IN HIS ORDER. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED TWO DIF FERENT METHODS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE THE REASON AND SA TISFY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE EARLIER YEAR ITSELF HAS BEEN REMITTED BACK TO THE AO BY THIS ITAT FOR H IM TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, TH E CASE LAW RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE IS OF NO HELP TO IT. ON THE ABOVE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE AO F OR A FRESH EXAMINATION :-12-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PLACE A LL MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE A O AND COMPL Y WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE A O IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THE AO IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO CONDUCT APPROPRIATE ENQUIRY AS DEEMED FI T. HOWEVER, THE AO SHALL OFFER EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE O N THE MATERIAL ETC., TO BE AGAINST IT AND THEREAFTER PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED I N NOT ADJUDICATING THE ASSESSEES GROUND RELATING TO THE DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII)(A) CITING NO TAX EFFECT ON THE ISSUE ON THE SAME LINES OF THIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 & 2011-12. IN TH IS REGARD, HE RELIED ON THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ITS OWN CASE (2019) 72 ITR (TRIB) 26 (CHENNAI) AND UTTARBANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK (20 18) 408 ITR 393 (CAL). 9.1 ON THE ABOVE ISSUE, THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS APPEAL PLEADING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDER ED THE PROVISIONAL FIGURES OF CENSUS DATA AVAILABLE ON FIRST DAY OF RE LEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/ S. 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT OF KARNATAKA IN THE :-13-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 CASE OF STATE BANK OF MYSORE VS ACIT (ITA NO 6-7 OF 2009 DATED 09.01.2015. 10. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTIO N TO THE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR & CPIO IN RTI- 09/01/2018- 19/CD(CEN) DATED 24.05.2018 TO THE CHIEF MANAGER, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE : A. AS REGARDS POINT NO.1 OF YOUR APPLICATION, IT IS SU BMITTED THAT THE VILLAGE LEVEL POPULATION DATA WAS NOT RELEASED ON 31.03.201 1 IN RESPECT OF CENSUS 2011. B. IN RESPECT OF POINT NOS. 2 & 3 OF YOUR APPLICATION , IT IS INFORMED THAT THE DATE OF RELEASE OF FIRST AND FINAL POPULATION DATA OF CENSUS 2011 IS 30.04.2013 WHICH INCLUDED INFORMATION UPTO VILLAGE L EVEL IN RURAL AREAS AND UPTO WARD LEVEL IN URBAN AREAS. AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DIRECTED T O DISPOSE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS. 11. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE A O WHILE FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT DID NOT AGREE WITH THE METHOD OF COMPUTA TION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1) (VIIA) AND HE ADOPTED A DIFFERENT METHOD OF COMPUTATION. ON APPE AL, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT BY ADOPTING THE DIFFERENT METHOD, THE AO ARRIVED AT THE SAME FIGURE OF RS. 90.08 CRORES AS AN ALLOWABLE AMOUNT. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSEESEES APPEAL IS PURELY ACADEMIC HAVI NG NO TAX IMPACT. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE COMPUTATION OF AVERAGE AGGRE GATE ADVANCES :-14-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BANKS RURAL BRANCHES HAVE N OT BEEN PROPERLY COMPUTED IN AS MUCH AS SOME OF THE BRANCHES CLAIME D AS RURAL BRANCH DO NOT CLEARLY FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION O F RURAL BRANCH GIVEN IN EXPLANATION (IA) TO SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE I .T. ACT. HOWEVER, IT WAS FOUND THAT EVEN AFTER THE ADVANCES MADE TO SUCH NON RURAL BRANCHES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE AVERAGE ADVANCES MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCHES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 19,08,77,607/- WOULD STILL BE ADMISSIBLE. THE REFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. AGGRIEVED A GAINST THAT DECISION, THE ASSESSEE IS ON APPEAL BEFORE US. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THE MATTER HAS BEEN NOT DEALT BY THE LD. CIT( A), WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE SHALL LA Y ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL ON WHICH IT RELIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SHALL COMPLY WITH HIS REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. THE LD CIT (A) AFTER GIVING EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE /A O , AS THE CASE MAY BE, DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. TH US, THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS RE VENUE ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR PROVISION ON L EAVE ENCASHMENT. SINCE, THE LD. AO FAILED TO DISPOSE THE CLAIM MADE DURING THE :-15-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THIS MATTER WAS TAKEN UP BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APP EAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES PLEA. HOWEVER, THE LD. AR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE (2019) 72 ITR (TRIB) 26, CHENNAI. 13. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE BANK CREATED A PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT ON RETIREM ENT AT RS. 6,81,00,000/-. SINCE, PROVISION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE U/S. 43B(F), THE ASSESSEE ITSELF DISALLOWED THIS SUM IN ITS COMPUTAT ION OF TAXABLE INCOME ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. HOWEVER, IT CLAIME D RS. 3,03,67,103/- AS DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT ON ACTUAL PAYMENT BASIS. THE AO ALLOWED THIS SUM. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE AO, A FRESH CLAIM WAS MAD E FOR THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 3,77,32,897/-, THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT ON RETIREMENT I.E., RS. 6,81,00,00 0/- AND THE ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS LEAVE ENCASHMENT ON RETIREMENT . THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) APART FROM RELYING ON THE SUPREME CO URT ORDER OF STAYING THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. SLP (CIVIL) C.C. NO. 12060 OF 2008 DATED 08.09.2008 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES ORIGINAL CLAIM WAS CORRECT IN AS MUCH AS IT HAD ON ITS OWN DISALLOWED THE PROVISI ON FOR LEAVE :-16-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 ENCASHMENT ON RETIREMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,81, 00,000/- AND HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 3,03,67,103/- ON ACTUAL PA YMENT BASIS. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE IS NO MER IT IN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL SUM OF RS. 3,37,32,897/-. THER EFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . 14. REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA 3197/CHNY/ 2017 : 15. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON STALE DRAFT ACCOUNT AT RS. 3,23,82, 457/- QUOTING THE THE DEPOSITOR EDUCATION AND AWARENESS FUND SCHEME, 2014OF THE RBI GUIDELINE. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RELIED ON THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IN I TS CASE IN 72 ITR (TRIB) 26 (CHENNAI), THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 18. GROUND NO.8 CHALLENGES THE DIRECTION OF LD. CIT( A) TO DEAL WITH THE ADDITIONS UNCLAIMED BALANCE OF RS. 1,12,00,000/-. 18.1 THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE AS UND ER: THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE-BANK TAKING DEMAND DRA FT/PAY ORDER IN FAVOUR OF VARIOUS PARTIES BUT THIS DEMAND DRAFTS/PA YEE ORDERS ARE NOT ENCASHED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND THEY ARE ACCOUNTED UNDER THE STALE DRAFT HEAD. IT IS STATED THAT THE PAYEE OF TH E DEMAND DRAFT CAN ENCASH ANY TIME/PAY ORDERS BANK EVEN AFTER LAPSE OF TEN YEAR S SUBJECT TO VALIDATION BY THE ISSUED BANKERS AND SOME OF THE SBI SAVING BA NKS AND CURRENT BANK CUSTOMERS, WHICH ARE NOT OPERATED THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE KEPT UNDER INOPERATIVE ACCOUNTS AND THE BALANCE IS TRANSFERRED TO THE UNCLAIMED BALANCE ACCOUNT. THE AMOUNTS OF STALE ACCOUNT TRANSFERRED DU RING THE YEAR UNDER :-17-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 CONSIDERATION IS RS. 1,12,00,000/-. THE AO IS OF T HE OPINION THAT THIS AMOUNT IS TAXABLE. ON APPEAL BEFORE US THE LD. CIT(A) HEL D THAT THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS A CESSATION OF TRADING LIABILI TY U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE APPELLANT HAD NOT WRITTEN OFF THE LIABILIT Y PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, CHENNA I IN THE CASE OF CITY UNION BANK LTD. (SUPRA), ALLOWED THE SAME. 18.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT IS CONTENDED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF DECIS ION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR [1996] 22 2 ITR 344 (SC), THE BALANCE LYING ON UNCLAIMED BALANCE ACCOUNT IN THE B ANK MORE THAN THREE YEARS OUGHT TO BE TAXED AS AN INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMENA BANK 2015 (12) TMI 1420 (SUPRA), WHER EIN THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE DECISION OF HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR (SUPRA) CANNOT BE APPLI ED TO THE PRESENT CLAIM. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION, WE DO NO T FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.8 FILED BY THE REVENUE. 18.3 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1497/CHNY/2018 IS DISMISSED. FOLLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION, SUPRA, WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED . 16. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EX-GRATIA PAYMENT FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE CIT VS MAINA ORE TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., 324 ITR 100 (BOM) AN D KUMARAN MILLS LTD VS CIT (2000) 241 ITR 564 (MAD) WHICH ARE DISTI NGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF :-18-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 THE LD. CIT(A) AND RELIED ON THIS TRIBUNAL DECISIO N IN ITS CASE IN 72 ITR (TRIB) 26 (CHENNAI), THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRAC TED AS UNDER : 24. GROUND NO.4 CHALLENGES THE DISALLOWANCE OF EX-G RATIA PAYMENT OF RS. 4,46,29,688/-. WE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1342/CHNY/2013 FOR AY 2007-08 FOR THE REASONS STAT ED VIDE PARA 6.3 OF THE ORDER THEREIN, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE- BANK. WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE EX-GRATIA OF RS. 4,46,29,688/- AS A DEDUCTION. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 24.1 IN THE RESULT, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED. FOLLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION, SUPRA, W E DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE CORRESPONDI NG GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED . 17. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD, CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE ON INTEREST ACCRUED ON NPAS TO THE EXT ENT OF RS. 57,42,500/- QUOTING THE RBI GUIDELINES. IN THIS RE GARD, THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RELIED ON THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RELIED ON THE SC DECISION IN THE CASE OF VAS ISTH CHARY VYAPAR LTD TMI 56 SC AND THIS TRIBUNAL DECISIONS IN ITS CASE IN , TMI 566- ITAT , CHENNAI, 72 ITR (TRIB) 26 (CHENNAI), THE RELEVANT P ORTION IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 29. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGES THE ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED IN NPAS ACCOUNTS OF RS. 14,00,00 0/-. THE AO HAD BROUGHT TO TAX THE INTEREST ON THE NPAS ACCOUNTS BY HOLDING THAT INTEREST HAD :-19-: ITA NO.3197/CHNY/2017 & 54/CHNY/2018 ACCRUED IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE APP ELLANT WITH BORROWERS. THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE-B ANK BY DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VASISTH C HAY VYAPAR LTD. [2019] 410 ITR 244 (SC), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD CONFIRMED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THAT THE INTE REST INCOME CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE NPA ACC OUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,00,00 0/- MADE ON INTEREST ON NP ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ST ANDS ALLOWED. 29.1 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE-BANK IS PARTLY ALLOWED. FOLLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION, SUPRA, W E DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE CORRESPONDI NG GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED . 18. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA N O. 54/CHNY/2018 AND THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 3197/CHNY/2017 ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10 TH JANUARY, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, / /DATED: 10 TH JANUARY, 2020 JPV )'0121 /COPY TO: 1. &/ APPELLANT 2. '(& /RESPONDENT 3. 5 ) (/CIT(A) 4. 5 /CIT 5. 1' /DR 6. # /GF