DCIT, Rohtak V. The Rohtak Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rohtak

ITA 4924/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8725 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARAS KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S K BANSAL
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI , ! #$ . % , ' ( BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM ) / ITA NO.4924/DEL/2016 * * / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 THE DCIT, CIRCLE AYAKAR BHAWAN, ROHTAK .......... +, /APPELLANT VS THE ROHTAK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, DELHI ROAD, ROHTAK. PAN-AAAAT8736B. . -.+, / RESPONDENT +,/0 / APPELLANT BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR, SR.DR -.+,/0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH.S.K.BANSAL, ADV. /1' / DATE OF HEARING : 02.01.2020 23 /1' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 .01.2020 4 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS AGAINST ORDE R OF CIT(A), ROHTAK DATED 04.07.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2013-14 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED B Y THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 IN ITA NO.2839/DEL/2011 DATED 13.02.2015. ITA NO.4924/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 2 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE P RESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ACCRUED INTEREST ON NPAS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,52,73,757/-. 4. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE WA S A CO-OPERATIVE BANK ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT SHOWN ANY INTEREST INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS ON THE NPAS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THAT SUCH INTEREST AMOUNT IS SHOWN AS THE OVERDUE INTERE ST RESERVE ACCOUNT ON LIABILITIES SIDE AND INTEREST RECOVERABLE ON ASSETS SIDE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THIS ACCRUED INTEREST IN COME WAS RS.2,52,73,757/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSE D THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON NPAS MAY NOT BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IN RESPONSE THE RETO, THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUES STAND COVERED BY THE OR DERS OF THE CIT(A) IN EARLIER YEAR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYI NG ON THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 012-13 MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ACCRUED INTEREST OF NPAS TOT ALING RS.2.53 CRORES APPROX. 5. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE AFORESAID ADDITION AS THE FACT OF RECOVERY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT WAS DOUBTFUL AND UNCERTAIN AND HEL D THAT HYPOTHETICAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUAL COULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE FIND THAT THE SAID ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE RELEV ANT FINDINGS ARE IN PARA 3.4 & 3.5 OF THE ORDER (SUPRA) AND WE DONOT REPRODU CE THE SAME FOR THE ITA NO.4924/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 3 SAKE OF BREVITY. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASO NING, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF ACCRUAL OF INTEREST ON NPAS. THUS, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINS T THE DELETION OF ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.8,25,871/- MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 8. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FIRST FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS THEN REVISED. THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT DIFFERENCE OF THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE ORI GINAL RETURN AND IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.8,25,871/- SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 2 HAS TABUL ATED THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORIGINAL COMPUTATION AND ALSO VIDE REVISED COMPUTATION. ON COMPARISON, THE CIT(A) HOLDS THAT THE COMPARISON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT. SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE SAME AMOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN TH E ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOM E, THE ADDITION OF RS.8,25,871/- WAS DELETED. THE CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SURRENDERED THE SAID AMOUNT AND THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE A MISTAKE IN ADOPTING TH E FIGURE. THE LD. DR HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS DISMIS SED. THUS, GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW, COMING TO THE LAST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTI ON OF RS.11,74,573/- ON ITA NO.4924/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 4 ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONS FOR HUDA INTEREST. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NEITHER CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINA L RETURN OF INCOME NOR ANY ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS T HAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED DURING THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASS ESSMENT YEAR ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND SINCE IT HAD BEEN ADDED IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS REDU CED ON ACTUAL RECEIPT BASIS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SAI D CLAIM WAS MADE IN REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHEREIN THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS MADE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED ON ACCRUAL BASIS DURING IMMEDIATELY PREC EDING YEARS, THE SAME WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ON THE GROUND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVISION WAS A LREADY MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE DISMISS GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS A PPEAL. 10. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JANUARY 2020. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SUSH MA CHOWLA) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER / DATED : 17 TH JANUARY, 2020 . * AMIT KUMAR * ITA NO.4924/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 5 4/-1567618 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. +, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT 3. 91 : ; / THE CIT(A) 4. < 91 / THE PR. CIT 5. 6. 6=>-1 ? ? / DR, ITAT, DELHI >#*@8 GUARD FILE. 4 / BY ORDER , .61-1 // TRUE COPY // A B C , ? ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI