Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur V. M/s Jalaun District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

ITA 594/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4596 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.594/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 11 M/S JALAUN DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., STATION ROAD, ORAI, DIST.: JALAUN 285001. PAN:AAAAJ5602J VS D.C.I.T.-4, KANPUR. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAJESH KUSHWAHA, C.A. APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 24 /02/2016 DATE OF HEARING 15 /03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) II, KANPUR DATED 28/05/2015 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED AS RAISED 4 GROUNDS BUT THE REVENUE HAS ONLY TWO GRIEVANCES. FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS ABOUT THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,67,376/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF INTRODUCTION OF FRESH SHARE CAPITAL. SECOND GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS ABOUT THE DELETI ON OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 120,26,549/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 41 (1) IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY LIABILITIES. 3. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F CIT (A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE FIRST DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY CIT (A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATION ON PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER:- 2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND THE ARGUMENTS PLACED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WI TH CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE PROCESS OF SHARE CAPITAL ALONG WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS OF COOPERATIVE SOC IETY AND RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE MEMBERS. THE PRIM ARY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY HAS PURCHASED THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE BANK. THE TRANSACTIONS ARE MADE IN CHEQUE AND THE RESPECTIVE PRIMARY COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AR E MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSEE BANK. THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTIONS ARE EXPLAINED AND THEIR GENUINENESS IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT. ACCORDINGLY, TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. 5. WE FIND THAT A CATEGORICAL FINDING IS GIVEN BY C IT (A) THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE EXPLAINED AND THEIR GENUINENESS IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT. THIS FINDING OF CIT (A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED B Y THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN T HE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 6. IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND DISPUTE, WE FIND THAT T HIS DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY CIT (A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATION ON PAGE 9 OF HIS ORDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND THE ARGUMENTS PLACED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WI TH CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AR HAS EXPLAI NED ABOVE THAT SUNDRY LIABILITIES CANNOT BE ADDED U/S 4 1 (1) AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN OFF ANY LIABILITY I N THE P/L ACCOUNT. SINCE THE LIABILITIES ARE NOT WRITTEN OFF IN THE P/L ACCOUNT, THEREBY, THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT B E MADE. SUCH LIABILITIES ARE MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF UNCLAIMED DDS, UNCLAIMED PENSION, UNCLAIMED SCHOLARSHIP, BANKERS CHEQUES ISSUED BUT NOT CLEARED OR PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT, WRONG MENTIONING OF BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER, UNCLAIMED SUBSIDY ETC. THESE LIABIL ITIES ARE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH IS YET TO BE PAID AS AND WHEN CLAIMED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO IS NOT CORRECT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO IS NOT CORRECT. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS HE REBY DELETED. 3 7. WE FIND THAT A CATEGORICAL FINDING IS GIVEN BY C IT (A) THAT THE LIABILITIES HAVE NOT CEASED TO EXIST. THIS FINDING OF CIT (A) C OULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED:15 TH MARCH, 2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR