Jain Co- Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3888/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4272 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ JAIN
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 139(5)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3888/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 JAIN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX, 5/10, NEW DELHI HOUSE, CIRCLE 30(1), NEW DELHI. 27, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAAAJ0060A ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: S/SHRI ANIL JAIN & PANKAJ JAIN RESPONDENT BY: SMT. RITU SHARMA ORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2014 IN APPEAL NO .32/2013-14 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)- XXV, NEW DELHI (FOR SHORT HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE LEARNED CIT(A)), THE AS SESSEE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 21.5.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) X XV, NEW DELHJI IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) XXV, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 21.3.2013 FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11, PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO, CIRCLE 30(1), NEW DELHI IN REJECTING TH E REVISED COMPUTATION. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A C OOPERATIVE BANK. FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11, THEY HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME ON 13.9.2010 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,22,29,910/-. THE MATTER WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND WHEN THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED, A SSESSEE CAME FORWARD WITH A LETTER WITH REVISED COMPUTATION STATING THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A DEDUCTION U /S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT FOR THE PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME ., THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED/MADE THE PROVISION ON STANDARD ASSETS FOR R S.2,91,349/- AND PROVISION FOR NPA FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT FOR RS.79,39,137/- AN D DEBITED THE SAME TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BUT BY MISTAKE WHILE SUBMI TTING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAID PROVISION WAS NOT ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME . ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WHILE SUBMITTING THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME IS RS.1,97,92,70 3/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,22,27,293/- REQUESTED THE AO TO TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, LEARNED AO HELD THAT WITHOU T FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(5) OF THE ACT, THE REVISED COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED AS PER THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION. ASSESSEE CHAL LENGED THIS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO, BY IMPUGNED ORDER, REJECTED THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US IN THIS APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARN ED AR THAT IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSED INCOME IS CONCERNED, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DISPUTE. HIS SUBMISSION IS THAT INASMUCH AS THE TIME FOR FILING THE REVISED RE TURN OF INCOME U/S 139(5) WAS OVER BY THE TIME THE ASSESSEE REALIZED THE MISTAKE T HAT WAS CREPT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, BY WAY OF FILING THE REVISED COMPUT ATION OF INCOME, THEY REQUESTED THE LEARNED AO TO TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERAT ION. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WE COULD GATHER FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR IS THAT THOUGH THE LEARNED AO ACCEPTED THE INCOME AS PER THE REVIS ED COMPUTATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SIMULTANEOUSLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) HAVE ALSO BEEN INITIATED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO GRIEVANCE IN RESPECT OF T HE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ENTERTAIN THE REQUEST OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THE REVISED COMPUTATION MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LEARNED AO AS AGAINST THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT WITHOUT FILING THE REVISE D RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(5) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE ANY SUCH REQUEST. 4. THE LEARNED AR PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISION OF TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ITA 2314/2013 IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD. , AND A DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF M/S XEROX INDIA LTD. VS DCIT IN ITA NO.1580/DEL/2010 IN SUPPORT OF HIS C ONTENTION. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THESE DECISIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THOSE CASES IS DIFFERENT INASMUCH AS THE QUANTUM ITSELF WAS CHALLE NGED BY THE ASSESSEE BASING ON THE REVISED COMPUTATION IN THOSE CASES; WHEREAS IT IS NOT SO IN THIS CASE. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSED INCOME IS NOT DISPUTED, BUT ONLY G RIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT INASMUCH AS THE LEARNED AO REJECTED TO TAKE TH E REVISED COMPUTATION ON RECORD AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS EE PRAYS TO DIRECT THE LEARNED AO TO TAKE THE REVISED COMPUTATION INTO CONSIDERATI ON. FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED ONLY AS PER THE REVISED COMP UTATION OF INCOME AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, UNDERSTAN D THAT THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO PREEMPT THE PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS WHICH WE CANNOT BE ADVERTED TO IN THIS APPEAL. IT IS ALWAYS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE UP ALL THESE CONTENTIONS WHEN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUDED AND NEED ARISES. 5. WITH THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL; SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (K. NARSIMHA CHARY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5 TH JANUARY, 2018 VJ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR