The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - III, Jalandhar V. M/s. Capital Local Area Bank LTD , Jalandhar

ITA 380/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5732 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2018
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S NEGI
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.380/ASR/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-III, JALANDHAR. VS. M/S CAPITAL LOCAL AREA BANK LTD., GT ROAD, JALANDHAR. PAN: AABCC363Q (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J.S. BHASIN, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.S. NEGI DATE OF HEARING : 20.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.02.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 22.03.2017 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2014-15. ITA NO.380/ASR/2017 2 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST TH E DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,63,31,754/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IN INVESTMENTS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE REVALUED ITS INVESTMENTS IN SECURITIES AND, ACCORDI NGLY, CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR SUCH REDUCTION IN VALUE AT RS.2,63,31 ,754/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF SUCH DEPR ECIATION, WHICH VIEW WAS OVERTURNED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST SUCH DELETION OF ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVA NT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SAID REDUCTION IN THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE OF VALUATION OF SHARES AND SEC URITIES AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR WITH REFERENCE TO THE MARKET VALUE PREVAIL ING AT THAT TIME. SUCH SECURITIES/SHARES HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSEE-BA NK AS STOCK-IN-TRADE THOUGH DESCRIBED AS INVESTMENT IN ITS ACCOUNT. I T IS SEEN THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEEES OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS AS WELL. VIDE ORD ER DATED 15.03.2017, ITA NO.380/ASR/2017 3 THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.209/ASR/2010 ETC. FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 ONWARDS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED SUCH ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ORDER AND THE FINAL CONCLUSION IS CONTAINED IN PARA 13 ON PAGE 30 . SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT GROUND ARE ADMITTEDLY SIMILAR TO THOSE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER Y EARS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORD ER ON THIS SCORE. 5. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND WHICH ARISES IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.95,83,444/-. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED THIS SUM AS BROKEN PERIO D INTEREST, WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT ALLOW SUCH CLAIM. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REVERSED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE REL EVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO OF A RECURRING NATURE INASMUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID ORDER UPHELD THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR BROKEN PERIOD INTE REST VIDE PARA 15, ITA NO.380/ASR/2017 4 PAGE 31 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF T HE LD. DR POINTING OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX FOR THE INSTAN T YEAR VIS--VIS THE PRECEDING YEARS, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.02.201 8. SD/- SD/- [N.K. CHOUDHRY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2018. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, AMRITSAR.