ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI V. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 4720/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 472019914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBACHAN RAM
• Assessee Lawyers: C NARESH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 11; 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARA GHAVAN (JM) ITA NOS.4702 TO 4706/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2002-03 TO 2006-07 THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 PAN-AAACU 0564G VS. THE ACIT, LTU , MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.4720 TO 4724/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2002-03 TO 2006-07 THE ACIT, LTU , MUMBAI VS. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 PAN-AAACU 0564G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI C NARESH DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SUBACHAN RAM O R D E R PER BENCH THIS SET OF APPEALS AND CROSS APPEALS CONSISTING OF 5 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND 5 CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)- FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07. AS THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TO GETHER AND INVOLVED UNION BANK OF INDIA 2 CONNECTED ISSUES, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPO SED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NOS. 4702 TO 4706/M/10 ASSESSEES APPEAL 2. GROUND NO. 1 (IN ITA NOS. 4702 TO 4704/M/10 FOR A.YRS 2002-03 TO 2004-05) RELATE TO DEPRECIATION ON LEASED ASSETS . 3. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 9061/MUM/04 VIDE ORDER DT. 4.6.2009 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y 1999-2000 MU MBAI TRIBUNAL IN ITA 5104/M/2004 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.5347/M/2001 ORDER DATED 31.10.2007 VIDE PARAGRAP H 12 AND 13 HAS HELD AS UNDER: AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ISSUE STA NDS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ITA NO.2589/MUM/2001. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 17 OF THE ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE AND HAVE C AREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THERE ARE SUFFICIENT FINDINGS IN THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO ARE ONLY LOAN OR FINANCE TRANSACTIONS AND SO DOCUMENTED AS TO GIVE THE COLOU R OF THE LEASE TRANSACTION TO CLAIM 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS SO LEASED OUT. IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HDFC BANK (SUPRA), AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED SIMILAR CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE AFFIRM THE FINDING S OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE TWO YEARS IN RESPE CT OF THE SO CALLED LEASE TRANSACTIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SO CALLED LEASED ASSETS ARE COR RECTLY DISALLOWED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE, IT IS ACCORDING LY UPHELD. UNION BANK OF INDIA 3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPE LLANT ARE DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000 AND AS THE FACTS FOR THE CUR RENT YEAR ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS FOR A.Y. 99-2000, RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. GROUND NO. 2 (IN ITA NOS. 4702 TO 4706/M/10 A. YRS 2002-03 TO 2006-07) RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFI RMATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS COMPU TED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A. NO RELIEF WAS ALLOWED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. AGGRIEVED THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE QUESTION OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE LTD. MFG. CO. V S DCIT (2010) 238 ITR 81 (BOM) HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14 A ARE APPLICABLE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AS ARE PREVAILING PRESENTLY AND THE D ISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE AO ON SOME REASONABLE BASIS AND NOT RULE 8D. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE Q UANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE, AS PER THE AFORE-NOTED JUDGMENT, AFTER ALLOWING A R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. UNION BANK OF INDIA 4 6. GROUND NO. 3 (IN ITA NOS. 4704, 4705 &4706/M/2 010- A.YRS 2004-05 TO 2006-07) IS WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION U /S. 36(1)(VIII). 7. THE AO HAD NOT GRANTED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S . 36(1)(VIII) ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO BANKS. THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). 8. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND H AS SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1) (VIII) AS APPLICABL E TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS RUNS AS UNDER : IN RESPECT OF ANY SPECIAL RESERVES CREATED AND MAI NTAINED BY A FINANCIAL CORPORATION WHICH IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDI NG LONG-TERM FINANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY IN INDIA. OR BY A PUBLIC CO MPANY FORMED AND REGISTERED IN INDIA WITH THE MAIN OBJECT OF CARRYIN G ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING LONG TERM FINANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OR PURCHASE OF HOUSES IN INDIA FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, AN AMOUNT NOT EX CEEDING FORTY PERCENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS I S PROVIDING LONG TERM FINANCE (COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE) CARRIED TO SUCH RESERVE ACCOUNT. AS PER EXPLANATION (A) TO SECTION 36(1)(VIII) FINA NCIAL CORPORATION IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE A PUBLIC COMPAN Y AND A GOVERNMENT COMPANY FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT UNDER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE T O A FINANCIAL CORPORATION WHICH IS ENGAGED IN SPECIFIC ACTIVITIE S VIZ., PROVIDING LONG TERM FIANC FOR INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL DEV ELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ETC.,. THE T ERM FINANCIAL CORPORATION WAS DEFINED IN AN INCLUSIVE MANNER SO AS TO INCLUDE A GOVERNMENT COMPANY AND A PUBLIC COMPANY. BY VERY N ATURE OF THIS DEFINITION BEING AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION AND N OT AN EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITION, AN ENTITY INCORPORATED UNDER A STATUTE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING WOULD COME UNDER THE DEFINITI ON OF FINANCIAL CORPORATION. IT SHALL NOT BE PRESUMED THAT ONLY GO VT. COMPANY UNION BANK OF INDIA 5 AND PUBLIC COMPANY ARE ENTITLED FOR ABOVE DEDUCTION . ANY FINANCIAL CORPORATION WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES SPEC IFIED IN THE SAID SECTION ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION SPECIFIED I N THE SAID SECTION. THE LD. CIT(A) OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE SAID DE FINITION IS INCLUSIVE AND WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS EXHAUSTI VE IN NATURE SO AS TO LIMIT THE DEDUCTION TO A PUBLIC COMPANY OR A GOVT. COMPANY. THE APPELLANT IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING INCORP ORATED UNDER A SPECIFIC LEGISLATION CARRYING ON THE SPECIFIED BUSI NESS. THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION WAS WRONGLY DENIED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PUBLIC COMPANY OR A GOVT. COMPA NY BY OVERLOOKING THE PROVISION THAT IT IS NOT ONLY THESE TWO TYPES OF COMPANIES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. FURTHER THIS POSITION HAS BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE AME NDMENT IN THE FINANCE ACT 2007 WHEREIN THE SECTION HAS BEEN R ESTRUCTURED IN AN EXHAUSTIVE MANNER TO CATEGORIES VARIOUS ENTITIES THAT WOULD COME WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL CORPORATIO N. SINCE THE DEFINITION IS ONLY CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE IT IS AL WAYS PRESUMED THAT THE SAID ENTITIES WERE COVERED IN THE DEFINITION FR OM THE INCEPTION OF THE SECTION. EVEN OTHERWISE THE APPELLANT IS A GOVERNMENT COMPAN Y AND A PUBLIC COMPANY AS DEFINED UNDER THE SAID SECTION AS EXPLAINED BELOW: AS PER THE EXPLANATION THE PUBLIC COMPANY SHALL HAV E THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN SECTION 3 OF COMPANIES AC T, 1956 AND A GOVERNMENT COMPANY SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IS SECTION 617 OF THE COMPANIES ACT. THE DEFINITION OF A GOVERNMENT COMPANY AS GIVEN IN SECTION 617 OF COMPANIES ACT IS AS UNDER: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, GOVERNMENT COMPANY M ENAS ANY COMPANY IN WHICH NOT LESS THAN FIFTY-ONE PER CE NT OF THE PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL IS HELD BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR BY ANY STATE GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENTS, OR PARTLY BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND PARTLY BY ONE OR MORE STATE GOVERNMENTS AND INC LUDES A SUBSIDIARY OF A GOVERNMENT COMPANY AS THUS DEFINED THE APPELLANT IS A FINANCIAL CORPORATION WITHIN T HE MEANING OF SECTION 36(1)(VIII) SINCE IT IS A GOVERNMENT CO MPANY. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMETN HOLDS MORE THAN 51% OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE BANK AND HENCE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 617 OF THE COMPANIES ACT THE APPELLANT IS A GOVERNMENT COMPANY. UNION BANK OF INDIA 6 FURTHER THE APPELLANT IS A ALSO A PUBLIC COMPANY SI NCE SECTION 11 OF THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AN D TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970 STATES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (43 OF 1961), EVERY CORRESPONDING BANK SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AN I NDIAN COMPANY AND A COMPANY IN WHICH PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTI ALLY INTERESTED. THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDI NG LONG TERM FINANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOP MENT OR DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN INDIA AND HENCE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE SAID DEDUCTION. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO CR EATED THE NECESSARY RESERVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID SECTI ON AND HENCE THE DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED . 9. WE FIND THAT AS PER EXPLANATION (A) TO SEC. 36(1 )(VIII) FINANCIAL CORPORATION IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE A PUBLIC COMPAN Y AND A GOVERNMENT COMPANY. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ANY ENTITY INC ORPORATED UNDER A STATUTE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING WOULD COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL CORPORATION. THE DEFINITIO N IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITION AND THE TERM FINANCIAL CORPORATION HAS B EEN DEFINED IN AN INCLUSIVE MANNER SO AS TO INCLUDE A GOVT. COMPANY A ND A PUBLIC COMPANY. HENCE FINANCIAL CORPORATION SHOULD INCLUDE BANK ALSO. THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 36(1)(V III) W.E.F. 1.2.2008 HAS CLEARLY STATED AS FOLLOWS: THE PROVISION HAS ALSO BEEN RESTRUCTURED TO PROVID E FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF ENTITIES (WHICH NOW ALSO IN CLUDES CO-OPERATIVE BANKS) AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ACTIVITIES FOR ELIGIBIL ITY OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID CLAUSE. FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDE R THE SAID CLAUSE, (I) A FINANCIAL CORPORATION SPECIFIED IN S EC. 4A OF THE COMPANIES ACT OR A FINANCIAL CORPORATION WHICH IS A PUBLIC SECTION COMPANY OR A BANKING COMPANY OR A CO-OPERATIVE BANK (OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY C O-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK). UNION BANK OF INDIA 7 THE AMENDMENT ALSO PROVIDES DEFINITIONS OF THE EXPR ESSIONS BANKING COMPANY, CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PRIMARY AG RICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY. 10. FURTHER THE RESTRUCTURING DONE TO DEFINE THE FINANCIAL CORPORATION IS ONLY CLARIFICATORY AS WE CAN SEE FROM THE NOTES ON CLAUSES WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FURTHER SEEKS TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS INCLUDING SPECIFIED ENTITIES AND EL IGIBLE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION. 11. SINCE THE DEFINITION IS ONLY CLARIFICATORY IN N ATURE, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE ENTITY SUCH AS THE ASSESSEE WERE COVERED IN THE DEFINITION FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE SECTION. 12. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVT. COMPANY SINCE THE CENTRAL GOVT. HOLDS MORE THAN 51% OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OF T HE BANK AND AS DEFINED IN SEC. 617 OF THE COMPANIES ACT THE ASSESS EE IS A GOVT. COMPANY. HENCE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VIII) HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVID ING LONG TERM FINANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVE LOPMENT IN INDIA AND IS A GOVT. COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE IS A FINANCIAL CORPO RATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 36(1)(VIII) SINCE IT IS GOVT. COMPA NY. HOWEVER THE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE UNDER THIS SECTION WILL BE REST RICTED TO THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED TO SPECIAL RESERVE SUBJECT TO THE LIMIT OF PRESCRIBED PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM PROVIDING LONG T ERM FINANCE FOR THE APPROVED PURPOSES MENTIONED IN SEC 36(1)(VIII). FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSE E U/S. 36(1)(VIII) THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO SUBJEC T TO THE ABOVE DIRECTION THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED . UNION BANK OF INDIA 8 13. GROUND NO. 4 (IN ITA NO. 4705/M/10 A.Y. 2005- 06) IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE FOR NON DEDU CTION OF TDS AT SIKKIM. 14. THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS PAYMENTS MADE IN THE STAT E OF SIKKIM. THE AO DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS A ND HENCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A) THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT ALL OWABLE AS DEDUCTION. THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF A NJAN BANERJEE VS UOI (207 ITR 130 ) (CAL) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANC E. 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF I.T. ACT TO SIKKIM W AS NOT CLEAR AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE. THE S ECRETARY (FINANCE GOVT. OF SIKKIM VIDE LETTER 3054 DT. 9.2.1996 SPECI FICALLY STATED ABOUT THE NON APPLICABILITY OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO SIKK IM WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY UNDER SECRETARY GOVT. OF SIKKIM VIDE L ETTER REF. 827/FIN DT. 1.2.2007. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO T DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID. HENCE NO AMOUN T OF EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TA X AT SOURCE IN THE STATE OF SIKKIM. 16. WITH REGARD TO THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT(A ) ON THE DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE COURT HELD THAT THE INCOME TAX ACT IS EXTENDED TO S TATE OF SIKKIM WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1989, THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN MADE OPE RATIONAL AS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE STATE EXE CUTIVE. UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FAULTED FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE SINCE AS PER THE LETTER OF GOVT. O F SIKKIM THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF T HE I.T. ACT AND UNION BANK OF INDIA 9 THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF TDS CANNOT BE APPLIED O N THE PAYEE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE. 17. AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GE IND IA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD V CIT 327 ITR 456, IF THE INCOME IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, THE PAYER IS NOT UNDER ANY O BLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AND THE PAYMENT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED FOR NON DE DUCTION OF TAX. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE APEX COURT DECISION WE D ELETE THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION/ PAYMENT OF TDS . 18. GROUND NO. 5 ( IN ITA NO. 4706/M/10 A.Y. 2006 -07) RELATES TO APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115JB 19. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KURUNG THAI BANK PCL) (ITA NO . 3390/M/90 DT. 30.9.2010. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER FOLLOWED THE DEC ISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 9061/M/04 20. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS FOL LOWS: THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT I S NOT A COMPANY UNDER COMPANIES ACT BUT IS ONLY DEEMED TO B E A COMPANY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 OF THE BANKING COM PANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970 . THEREFORE AS HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CASE OF MAHA RASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (82 ITD 422) THE PROVISIONS OF SE C. 115JB CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (329 ITR 91). 21. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF KURUNG THAI BANK PCL) I N ITA NO. 3390/M/90 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLL OWS: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AND FOLLOWING TH E VIEW TAKEN BY A CO ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MAHARAS HTRA STATE UNION BANK OF INDIA 10 ELECTRICITY BOARD VS JCIT (82 ITD 422), WHICH HOLDS THAT PROVISIONS OF MAT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ELECTRICITY COMPANIES FOR MUTUALLY SIMILAR REASON WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115JB DO NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE, AND, AS SU CH, THE AO WAS IN ERROR IN CONCLUDING THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE VERY INITIATION OF REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS BAD IN LAW, AND WE QUASH THE SAME. 22. THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REVERSED AND WE HOLD THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115JB CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 23. GROUND NO. 6 (IN ITA NO. 4706/M/10- A.Y. 2006-0 7) RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IN COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS. 24. GROUND NO. 5 HAS BEEN DISMISSED THEREFORE DISAL LOWANCE U/S. 14A IN COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS IS CONSEQUENTIAL THEREFO RE DISMISSED AS CONSEQUENTIAL. ITA NOS.4720 TO 4724/MUM/2010 25. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE (IN ITA NO.S 4702 TO 4706/M/10 FOR A.YRS. 2002-03 TO 2006-07) IS WITH RE SPECT TO PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. 26. THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED AS IN THE NATURE OF RENT, MUNICIPAL TAXES ETC. WHERE USUALLY THE AMOUNTS ARE PAID AFTER DETAILED NEGOTIATIONS AND RECEIPT OF DEMAND OF THE ARREARS AMOUNT FROM TH E APRTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURE OF EXPE NDITURE HAD COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE BANK IS A NATIONALIZED BA NK SUBJECTED TO AUDIT, THE CLAIM THAT THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE EXPENSES AR OSE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD NOT BE A MATTER OF DOUBT PART ICULARLY CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE. HE THEREFORE ALLOWED TH E AMOUNT ON THE UNION BANK OF INDIA 11 GROUND THAT NO INFALLIBLE OR DEMONSTRABLE PROOF HAD TO BE NECESSARILY GIVEN TO ALLOW THE ABOVE SUM AS AN EXPENDITURE. 27. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS F OLLOWS: FURTHER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE LIKE THAT OF THE R ESPONDENT, WHICH HAS BRANCHES ALL OVER INDIA INCURRING OF EXPENDITUR E AS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS AND CANNOT BE CUT OFF AT ANY POINT OF TIME TO BE CLASSIFIED AS PRIOR EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWED. 28. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL COURT IN THE CASE OF TOYO ENGG. INDIA LTD. VS JCIT 110 TTJ 373 WHEREIN I T HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: IT IS QUITE NATURAL THAT THERE WOULD BE AN AMOUNT OF OVERFLOW OF INFORMATION AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR . THEREFORE, TO CERTAIN EXTENT, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WERE RECEIVED ONLY AFTER THE CLOSE OF T HE ACCOUNTING YEAR, COULD BE ACCEPTED. IT IS A CONTINUOUS PROCES S TO INCUR EXPENDITURE AND TO ACCOUNT FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE TREATED TECHNICALLY AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, IT RELATES TO A CONTINUOUS FLOW OF EXPENDITURE. THERE FORE, THERE IS NO JUSTICIATION IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE, OTHERW ISE NORMALLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE GR OUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 29. THE SECOND GROUND (IN ITA NOS. 4702 TO 4705/M/ 10 FOR A.YRS 2002-03 TO 2005-06) RELATES TO REVERSAL OF INTEREST . 30. THIS ISSUE IS IN COVERED BY IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 9061/M/04 VIDE O RDER DT. 4.6.2009 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,12 ,80,937/- BEING THE INTEREST INCOME REVERSED IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE GUIDANCE ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THE CIT(A) SU STAINED THE ADDITION FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR THE AY 1999-2000. WE FIND THAT ON UNION BANK OF INDIA 12 THE VERY SAME ISSUE THE ITAT IN ITA 5104 FOR THE AY 1999-2000 HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL OBSERVING AS UNDER : AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.5347/M/2001 ORDER DATED 31.10.2007 VIDE PARAGRAP H 24 HAS HELD AS UNDER: AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VID E ITA NO.2590/M/01. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 21 & 22 OF THE ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 21. THE LAST DISPUTE IN THE APPEAL FOR A.Y.1997-98 RELATES TO TAXABILITY OF REVERSAL OF UNREALIZED INTEREST AMOUN TING TO RS.5,61,73,805/-. ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES ISSU ED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AN OPTION IS GIVEN TO THE BAN K EITHER TO MAKE A PROVISION FOR SUCH UNREALIZED INTEREST ON TH E NON- PERFORMING ASSETS (NPA) BY DEBITING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OR REVERSE THE SAID INTEREST BY DEBITING TH E INCOME IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND IN BOTH CASES THE BOR ROWERS ACCOUNT IS CREDITED. THE BANKS HAD NO OPTION BUT F OLLOW THE ABOVE GUIDELINES OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THE AFORESAID METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE SAME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE GONE THRO UGH THE DETAILS FILED IN THIS REGARD. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDE RED SECTION 43D OF THE I.T.ACT AND FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TCI FINANCE LTD. V. ACIT (91 ITD 573). IN THAT CAS E THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF FI NANCE AND LEASING AND FOLLOWED THE PRUDENT GUIDELINES PRE SCRIBED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA FROM AY. 1995-96. HOW EVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING , WHICH WAS REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HEL D THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO AS THE ASS ESSEE HAD ONLY FOLLOWED THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA CIRCULAR IN THE PREPARATION OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FOLLOWING SIMILAR METHOD OF A CCOUNTING AND THE SAME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, THE NON-RECOGNITION OF I NCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF NON-PERFORMI NG ASSETS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF UNION BANK OF INDIA 13 THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TCI FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA ) AND THE DELHI BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF TEDCO INVESTMEN T & FINANCIAL SERVICES (P) LTD. (87 ITD 298) ALSO SUPPO RTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID DECISION S OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ADDITION IS DELETED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE LD DR AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THIS GROUND BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGH T BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 1999-2000, WE ALLOW THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,12,80,937/- HENCE FOLLOWING THE EARLIER YEAR ORDERS IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE WE DISMISS THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE. 32. THE THIRD GROUND (IN ITA NOS. 4702 TO 4706/M/10 FOR A.YRS 2002- 03 TO 2006-07) RELATES TO BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. 33. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 IN ITA NO. 5588/M/95 WHEREIN IT HAS BE EN HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE NEXT DISPUTE IN THE APPEAL FOR A.Y.S 1991-92, 1 993-94 AND 1994-95 RELATES TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF NON-RURAL BA D DEBTS WRITTEN OFF, SUCH AMOUNTS ARE AS UNDER: A.Y. AMT 1991-92 23,04,70,367 1993-94 38,72,24,760 1994-95 76,71,34,666 THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SUMS WERE NOT ALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ALLOWED U/S.36(1)(VIIIA) EXCEEDS THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ABOVE AMOUNT AND HENCE AS PER TH E PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(VII) RESTRICTS THE DEDUCTION IN RESPE CT OF BAD DEBTS UNION BANK OF INDIA 14 WRITTEN OFF ONLY IF IT EXCEEDS THE CREDIT BALANCE I N THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ACCOUNT MAINTAINED U/S.36(1) (VIIIA) AND IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF RELATING TO ADVANCES MADE AT RURAL BRANCHES AND DOES NOT APPLY TO BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF RELATING TO ADVANCES MADE BY NON-RURAL BRANCHES. HENCE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTEND ED THAT THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF RELATING TO ADVANCES MADE BY RURA L BRANCHES SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON TH FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA V DCIT (ITA NO.3062/BOM/93) F OR A.Y. 1989-90 ORDER DATED 15.02.2005) II) SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. VS. CIT (262 ITR 570- KER) III) DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD. V. CIT (131 TAXMAN 744 KER ) IV) KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD. VS. DCIT (ITAT CHENNAI BENCH IN ITA NO.1410/MDS/93 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2002 V) DCIT V. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. (267 ITR 53-SB-CO CHIN) THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 1991-92. ACCORDING TO HIM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) SHOULD BE READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(VIIIA). HE CONTENDED THAT THE DEDUCTION ON AC COUNT OF BAD DEBTS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO SUCH AMOUNT BY WHICH DEBT EXCE EDS THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THE PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT MADE U/S.36(1)(VIIIA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS ALSO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) AND 36(1)(VIIIA) ARE AS UNDER: 36(1)(VII): SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE A MOUNT OF ANY BAD DEBT OR PART THEREOF WHICH IS WRITTEN OFF AS IR RECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YE AR. 36(1)(VIIA) IN RESPECT OF ANY PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS MADE BY- (A) A SCHEDULED BANK NOT BEING A BANK INCORPORATED BY O R UNDER THE LAWS OF A COUNTRY OUTSIDE INDIA OR A NON- SCHEDULED BANK, AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING SEVEN AND O NE- HALF PERCENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED BEFORE MA KING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE AND CHAPTER VIA AND AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING TEN PER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE UNION BANK OF INDIA 15 AVERAGE ADVANCES MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCHES OF SUCH BANK COMPUTED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER. THE REPRODUCED PORTION CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT THE PR OVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(VII) MAKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE ALLOW ABILITY OF DEDUCTION APPLIES IN CASES COVERED U/S.36(1)(VIIA) WHICH ITSE LF IS APPLICABLE ON ADVANCES MADE TO RURAL BRANCHES. THE PROVISION OF S ECTION 36(1)(VIIA) DOES NOT APPLY TO BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF TO ADVANCES MADE BY NON- RURAL BRANCHES. BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF BY ADVANCES M ADE BY NON- RURAL BRANCHES SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL WITHOUT AN Y RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS. IN TAKING THIS VIEW, WE HAVE ONLY FOLL OWED THE BINDING DECISION QUOTED BEFORE US (EXTRACTED IN PARA 8 ABOV E) BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDI NGLY. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 36(1)(VIIA) DOES NOT APPLY TO BAD DEBTS WRITTE N OFF TO ADVANCES MADE BY NON RURAL BRANCHES. THEREFORE WE DISMISS THE DEP ARTMENTAL APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE. 34. THE 4 TH GROUND (IN ITA NOS. 4705 & 4706/M/10 FOR A.YRS 20 05-06 & 2006-07) RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO DEPRECI ATION ON INVESTMENTS. 35. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1982-83 IN ITA NO. 3075/M/86 ALSO IN ITA NO. 1 679/M/01 FOR A.Y. 1997-98 IN THE CASE OF BANK OF INDIA VIDE ORDER DT . 27.3.2008 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: 36. IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 3075/M/86 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IS A NATIONALIZED BANK. THE B ANKS ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THEIR LIQU IDITY IN EASILY REALIZABLE SECURITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVIS ION OF BANKING REGULATIONS ACT AND IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE DIR ECTIONS ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA FROM TIME TO TIME. SUCH SECURITIES AS FAR AS THE BANKS ARE CONCERNED ARE PART OF THEIR CIRCUL ATING CAPITAL. THE MERE FACT THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AS STOCK IN TR ADE IN THE BALANCE SHEET CANNOT ALTER THE TRUE NATURE OF THESE SECURIT IES HELD BY THE UNION BANK OF INDIA 16 BANK AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE TWO PRINCIPLES ARE APP LICABLE WITH REGARD TO THE VALUATION OF STOCK AND THAT THE ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED TO VALUE THE CLOSING STOCK EITHER AT COST OR MARKET VA LUE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER, AND THAT THE CLOSING STOCK MUST BE THE VALUE OF THE OPENING STOCK IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. IT IS THUS, CLEAR TH AT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE BASIS ADOPTED IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HA S THE OPTION TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AT COST OR MARKET PRICE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER, PROVIDED THE CHANGE IS B ONAFIDE AND FOLLOWED REGULARLY THEREAFTER. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORDS TO INDICATE THAT THE CHANGE IN METHOD IS NOT BONAFIDE. IN FACT IN THE CASE OF A NATIONALIZED BA NK, THE CHANGE IN METHOD OF VALUATION OF SUCH SECURITIES HELD AS STOC K IN TRADE, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, CAN BE SAID TO BE NOT BONAF IDE. IN FACT, IGNORING THE LOSS WOULD RESULT IN DISTORTION OF THE REAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE REPRESE NTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE CHANGED METHOD OF VALUATION OF SECURITIES HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED IN ALL SU BSEQUENT YEARS. WE, THEREFORE, APPROVE THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF SECURITIES HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE. THIS VIEW IS FU LLY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE SUSTAIN TH E FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) ON THIS POINT ALSO AND DIRECT T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO VERIFY THE FIGURES OF LOSS AND THEREAF TER ALLOW THE SAME. THIS GROUND NO. 3 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ALSO D ISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE DISMISS THIS G ROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH JUNE, 2011 RJ UNION BANK OF INDIA 17 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR B BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI UNION BANK OF INDIA 18 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 27 . 0 6 . 201 1 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 28 .0 6 .2011 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10 . DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______