The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda V. M/s. Pragati Sahakari Bank Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 484/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6284 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 484/AHD/2016 DCIT VS. PRAGATI SAHAKARI BANK LTD A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] I.T.A. NO. 484/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX .....APPELLANT CIRCLE-1 (2), BARODA VS. M/S. PRAGATI SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED .RESPONDENT ALEMBIC COLONY, GORWA ROAD, VADODARA-390003 [PAN : AAAAP 0468 N] APPEARANCES BY: MUDIT NAGPAL FOR THE APPELLANT BANDISH SOPARKAR FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 22.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 23.01.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER 2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-5, VADODARA, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AS FO LLOWS:- WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME ON NPAS AS THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-SC HEDULED CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43D ARE NOT APPLICABL E TO THE ASSESSEE?. 3. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE AF ORESAID ISSUE IS COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2016 PASS ED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 , WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SECTI ON 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CONFERS THE POWERS UPON THE COMMISSIONER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF A PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT AND REVISE AN Y ORDER IF HE CONSIDERS THE SAME TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES TS OF THE REVENUE. THE ITA NO. 484/AHD/2016 DCIT VS. PRAGATI SAHAKARI BANK LTD A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 2 COMMISSIONER CAN TAKE RE-COURSE TO REVISION U/S.263 OF THE ACT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE TWIN CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SAT ISFIED SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE COMMISSIONER IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS PURPORTED TO A CT IN EXERCISE OF POWER U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND THEREBY HAS SOUGHT TO SET AS IDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THE FOUNDATION OF THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE OFFER ED THE INTEREST ON NPAS AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LAW TO UCHING THE CONTROVERSY IN ISSUE HAS BEEN EXTENSIVELY DEALT WITH IN THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI MAHILA SEWA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.(SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOUND MERIT IN NOT CHARGING THE INTEREST ON NPAS BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN. THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER IN INVOKING THE SECTION 263 OF THE ACT RUNS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT AS NOTED ABOVE AND THEREFORE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE OBSERVATION ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE THAT SOME ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUE WAS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW THE CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUBSTITUTI NG HIS OPINION IN PLACE OF THE OPINION OF THE AO WITHOUT SHOWING ANY PERVERSITY IN THE ACTION OF THE AO. 6.1. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE H OLD THAT THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND THEREF ORE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN CONSEQUENCE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 FOR THE AY 20 09-10 DATED 19/12/2013 IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND QUASHED. 4. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E VIEWS SO TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2009-10 VIDE ITA NO.480/AHD/2014, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 23 RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 **BT* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (4) CIT(A) (2) THE RESPONDENT (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (3) COMMISSIONER (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD