DCIT, Cir-2, Jalpaiguri, Jalpaiguri V. M/s Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Coochbihar

ITA 576/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1070 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VARKEY JUDIC IA L M EMBER
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TULSIYAN SHRI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI ABY.T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 576 / KOL / 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, 2 ND FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, RACE COURE PARA, NAYA BASTY, JALPAIGURI- 735101 V/S . M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMI BANK, HEAD OFFICE, SUNITY ROAD, P.O & DIST. COOCHBEHAR PIN 736 101 [ PAN NO.AAACU 9683 Q ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT C.O. NO.73/KOL/2017 (A/O ITA NO.576/KOL/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMI BANK, HEAD OFFICE, SUNITY ROAD, P.O & DIST. COOCHBEHAR PIN 736 101 V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE-2, 2 ND FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, RACE COURE PARA, NAYA BASTY, JALPAIGURI-735101 CO-OBJECTOR .. / RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI S.K. TULSIYAN, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI KALYAN NATH, DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-10-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08-11-2017 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- ITA NO.576/KOL/2015 & CO NO 73/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2010- 11 DCIT, CIR-2, JAL VS. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK PAGE 2 THIS APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION (CO) BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-JALPAIGURI DATED 27.02.2015. ASSESSMENT W AS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-2,JALPAIGURI U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.0 3.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. SHRI S.K. TULSIYAN, LD. ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI KALYAN NATH LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARE D ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 2. REVENUES APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 9 DAYS AND CONDON ATION PETITION HAS BEEN FIELD EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY. LD . AR DID NOT OBJECT FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. HENCE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AN D ADMIT THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. THE APPEAL AS WELL AS CO IS HEARD TOGETHER AND B EING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E. 4. FIRST WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL. THE GROUNDS R AISED BY REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. CATHOLIC SYRIN BANK LT. 2004 (267) ITR 52, WHEREIN, THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS RESTORED THE CASE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE FACTUAL POSITION A N DECIDED THE CASE AS PER DIRECTION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW B Y DIRECTING THE AO TO RECALL FOR THE DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAID TO RECOVE RY AGENTS, DEBT WISE DETAILS AND TO DECIDE THE CASE, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW , AS RESTORING THE CASE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-EXAMINING THE CLAIMS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER LAW. THE CIT(A) CAN ONLY CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUAL THE ASSESSMENT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE RATIO OF THE JUGEMENT IN THE CASE OF VIGUR TRADING & INVESTMENT (IND) LTD. VS. ITO WD-9( 2), KOLKATA ITA NO.994(KOL) OF 2009 AY 2005-06 ORDER DATED 15.0 2.2012 B BENCH KOLKATA 2. CIT(A) HAS NOT REBUTTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING ADDITIONS UNDER A DEBT. IN THE ANNUAL REPORT S OF THE ASSESSEE, NO CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE AS BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF. ITA NO.576/KOL/2015 & CO NO 73/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2010- 11 DCIT, CIR-2, JAL VS. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK PAGE 3 5. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS GROUND NO .1 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITH DIRECTION TO RE- EXAMINE THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) OF T HE ACT. 6. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RE GIONAL RURAL BANK AND REGISTERED WITH RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)( VIIA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PROVISION CREATED FOR THE BAD DEBT AS PER THE GU IDELINES OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THE PROVISION WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 6ABA OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962 FOR ALL RURAL ADV ANCE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. 7. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF RURAL ADVANCE MADE DURING T HE YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED 10% DEDUCTION OF THE FRES H ADVANCE MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCHES OF THE BANK DURING THE YEAR AND EXCE SS PROVISION WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSE E. 8. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE INTER EST INCOME EARNED ON ALL RURAL ADVANCE WAS OFFERED TO TAX WHICH WAS INCLUSIV E OF CARRY FORWARD ADVANCE AS WELL AS FRESH ADVANCE MADE DURING THE YEAR. HOWE VER, LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE HAS RESTORE D THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.5 IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DED UCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII), WHICH IS FOR BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF AND A DEDUCTION U /S. 36(1)(VIIA), WHICH IS FOR PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IN RESP ECT OF ADVANCES MADE BY RURAL BRACHES. SUCH A SITUATION HAS BEEN CONSIDE RED IN THE JUDGMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DC IT VS. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD 2004 (267) ITR 0052-ITAT. IN THIS J UDGEMENT THE HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH ITAT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER- AS REGARDS THE ACTUAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISION S OF BOTH CLAUSES (VII) (VIIA) TO THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ((APPEALS) HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE-B ANK IS MAINTAINING TWO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS, ONE FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OTHER FOR THE PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS IN RURA L BRANCHES FOR WHICH SEPARATE ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED AND THAT THI S IS EVIDENCED BY THE ENTRIES IN THE PRINTED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE-SHEET AN BREAK-UP DETAILS. THAT THIS IS THE FACTUAL POSITION ITA NO.576/KOL/2015 & CO NO 73/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2010- 11 DCIT, CIR-2, JAL VS. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK PAGE 4 WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BEFORE US BY LEARNED SENIOR COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, HE ALSO STATED THAT DEBT-WISE PO SITION CAN ALSO BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE B ANK. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MATTER HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXAMINE THE FACTUAL POSITI ON AND DECIDE THE SAME AS PER OUR DIRECTIONS. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH OF HON'B LE ITAT, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CALL FOR THE DEBT WISE DETAILS FROM THE BANK AND ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VIIA) BY CONSIDERING CARRIED FO RWARD RURAL ADVANCES & CURRENT YEAR RURAL ADVANCES AND REDUCING IT BY TH E DEBTS FOR WHICH DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VII) HAS BEEN CLAIMED. THE AO I S DIRECTED TO ENSURE THAT THE ADVANCES WHICH HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF AND F OR WHICH DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VII) HAS BEEN CLAIMED, ARE NOT CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATING THE DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VIIA). THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 9. LD. DR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS E XCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION BY RESTORING THE FILE BACK TO AO FOR F RESH ADJUDICATION. AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 251 OF THE ACT HE HAS NO POWER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. LD. DR WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT TO PROV ISION CREATED U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IF IT IS MADE IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE AC T IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND WITHOUT MAKING ANY PROVISION IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY LD. CIT(A) IS VERY SPECIFIC AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ISSUE OF CREATING THE PROVISION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS IS NOT ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF AO. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT PLACE D BY LD. DR CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE INST ANT CASE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF PROVISION CREATED U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE AO THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF FRESH RURAL ADVANCE MADE DURI NG THE YEAR. HOWEVER, LD. ITA NO.576/KOL/2015 & CO NO 73/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2010- 11 DCIT, CIR-2, JAL VS. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK PAGE 5 CIT(A) REVERSED THE ORDER PASSED BY AO AFTER HAVING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD 2004 (267) ITR 0052-ITAT. AS PER THE LD. CIT(A) BOT H RURAL ADVANCE I.E. CARRY FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL A S FRESH ADVANCE MADE DURING THE YEAR ARE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VIIA ) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO REWORK THE DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. 10.1 WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A VERY SPECI FIC DIRECTION FOR WORKING OUT THE AMOUNT OF ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE TO A SSESSEE U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 251 OF THE ACT AS ALLEGED BY REVENUE. 10.2 COMING TO THE SECOND CONTENTION OF LD. DR THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT INSTANT ISSUE IS NOT ARISING F ROM THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NONE OF THE AUTHORIT Y HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND OF NON CLAIM IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAI R PLAY WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE SAME FROM THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STAT EMENT WHETHER IT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IN IT S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, THE GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 11. SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.2 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON BAD DEBT WRI TTEN OFF. 12. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HA S CLAIMED BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF FOR 7,91,30,420/- WHICH WAS CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEAD P ROVISION AND CONTINGENCY. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW TH AT THE CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF UNDER THE HEAD PROVISION AND CONTINGENCY WHICH SIGNIFIES THAT THE BAD DEBT H AS NOT ACTUALLY BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE IMPUGNED BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF IS ACTUALLY REPRESENTING THE PROVISION AND CONT INGENCY WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. T HEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO.576/KOL/2015 & CO NO 73/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2010- 11 DCIT, CIR-2, JAL VS. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK PAGE 6 13. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUC TION WAS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF IN THE MANNER AS PR OVIDED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY ASSES SEE CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT SHOWN UNDER TH E APPROPRIATE HEAD OF ACCOUNTS. AS SUCH, THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF WERE D ULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE PROVISION AND CONTINGENCY AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO CHECK WHETHER THE BAD DEBT HAS ACTUALL Y BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 14. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 15. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A VERY SPECIF IC DIRECTION FOR WORKING OUT THE AMOUNT OF ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE TO T HE ASSESSEE U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 251 OF THE ACT AS ALLEGED BY REVENUE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND FOR NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE DIRECTION AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 16. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. COMING TO ASSESSEES CO NO.73/KOL/2017 . 17. AS FAR AS CO FILED BY ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, TH E FIRST ASPECT TO BE CONSIDERED IS THE CONDONATION OF 29 DAYS DELAY IN F ILING THE CO WHICH IS EXPLAINED AS OWING TO SLEEKNESS OF THE CHARTERED AC COUNTANT WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER THE INCOME-TAX MATTER OF ASSESSEE-BAN K. CONSIDERING THE REASONS GIVEN, WE DEEM IT FIT TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE CO OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO.576/KOL/2015 & CO NO 73/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2010- 11 DCIT, CIR-2, JAL VS. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK PAGE 7 18. GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS CO ARE AS UND ER:- 1) THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT A CLAIM OF RS.2,62,74,265/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) WHEN THE ACTUAL MADE IN THE RETURN WAS RS.26,27,42,650/- 2) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE AG GREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES STIPULATED U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) BE COMPUTED BY CONSIDERING THE CARRIED FORWARD RURAL ADVANCES AND CURRENT YEAR RUR AL ADVANCES AND THE SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD. 3) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) NOT APPRECIATING T HE FACT THAT A DETAILED CALCULATION OF AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES WAS PRODU CED BEFORE THE AO IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. 19. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT- A ERRED IN OBSERVING THE CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE FOR 2,62,74,265/- WHEREAS ACTUAL CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN WAS OF 26,27,42,650/-. 20. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY LD. AR THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RECORDING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AT 2,62,74,265/- ONLY. IT IS BECAUSE THE ACTUAL CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN IS O F 26,27,42,650/- ONLY. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO TAKE THE AMOUNT OF CLAIM MADE U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, THE CO RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSE. 21. NEXT GROUND OF CO RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS SUPPORT ING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE DISMISS THE SAME AS INFRUCTUOUS. 22. LAST ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS CO IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM MADE BY IT U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. 23. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS A LSO BEEN RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.1 AND WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICA TED THE SAME IN PARA-9 TO 10 OF THIS ORDER AND TAKING CONSISTENT VIEW WE D ISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY C.O. ITA NO.576/KOL/2015 & CO NO 73/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2010- 11 DCIT, CIR-2, JAL VS. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK PAGE 8 24. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES CO IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AND CO O F ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 08 /11/2017 SD/- SD/- (ABY. T. VARKEY) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP &- 08 / 11 /201 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /ASSESSEE-M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRMIN BANK, H. O. SUNITY ROAD, P.O. & DIST. COOCHBEHA R IN 736101 2. /REVENUE-DCIT, CIRCLE-2, 2 ND FL, C.R. BUILDING, RACE COURSE, PARA, NAYA BASTY, JALPAIGURI P IN 735101 3. 1 2 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 2- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 5 881, 1, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. ; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 1,