BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI V. DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6077/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3152 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: C NARESH LD
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 32; 10

Judgement Text

BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.6077/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) & C.O. NO. 352/MUM/2018 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5978/M/2017] ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) BANK OF INDIA 8 TH FLOOR, TAXATION DEPARTMENT STAR HOUSE, C-5, G BLOCK BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400 051. / VS. DCIT - 2(1)(1) AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACB-0472-C ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) & ./ I.T.A. NO. 5978/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) DCIT - 2(1)(1) AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. / VS. BANK OF INDIA 8 TH FLOOR, TAXATION DEPARTMENT STAR HOUSE, C-5, G BLOCK BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400 051. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACB-0472-C ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.NARESH- LD. AR REVENUE BY : SRI NARENDRA KUMAR- LD.CIT- DR 2 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 !' / DATE OF HEARING 21/02/2019 ! ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/02/2019 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 -15 WHICH AGITATE THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, MUMBAI [CIT(A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-4/IT-139/DCIT-2(1)/2016 -17 DATED 21/06/2017 . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS-OBJECTIONS AGAI NST REVENUES APPEAL. THE PERUSAL OF ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 08/01/2019 REVEAL THAT THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING OF THESE APPEA LS WAS FIXED AS 07/03/2019. HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT MOVED AN APPLIC ATION FOR EARLY HEARING OF THE SAME WHICH WAS ACCEDED TO BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 25/01/2019 AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS HAVE COME UP FOR EARLY HEARING TODAY. 1.1 THE REVISED GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON 26 /03/2018 READS AS UNDER: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXT ENT IMPUGNED IN THE GROUNDS ENUMERATED BELOW: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CLT(A) WAS CORRECT IN LAW, IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 115 JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEE TO WHOM PROVISO TO SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 211 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 APPLIES I.E. COMPANIES W HICH ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PREPARE ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART II & III OF SCHEDULE VI OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, IGNORING THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2012, WHEREBY EXPLANATION 3 WAS INSERTED WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB WAS APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM AY 2013-14 TO EVERY COM PANY TO WHICH THE PROVISO TO SUBSECTION 2 OF SECTION 211 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1 956 APPLY AND WHICH HAS AN 3 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 OPTION TO PREPARE ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT GOVERNING SUCH COMPANY? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SEC TION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM AY 2013-14 AND IS, THEREFORE, APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION? 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE DECISION OF THE C1T(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO B E RESTORED. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1) [HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS ' DCIT'] HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING RS.43,69,033 U/S. 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'] TOWARDS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELAT ION TO INCOME CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S. 10(34) AND 10(15) OF THE ACT AND THE HON'BLE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) - 4 [HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'CIT(A)'] HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A.THE LEARNED DCIT BE DIRECTED NOT TO DISALLOW AN Y EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE INCOME CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S. 10(34) AND 10(15) OF THE ACT AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.43,69,033 MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME AND REDUCE THE TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 1A WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ASSUMING WITHOUT ACCEPTING THAT YO UR HONOURS IS OF THE OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IS WARRANTED IN THE CASE OF T HE APPELLANT BANK, THEN THE LEARNED DCIT BE DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE TREASURY DIVISION OF THE BANK TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT ALREADY DISALLOWED BY THE APPELLANT BANK IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, I.E., RS. 2 1,78,804 AND REDUCE THE TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DCIT HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING AMORTIZATION OF LEASE PREMIUM PAID IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS LEASE HOLD PROPERTIES AGGREGATING TO RS.4,08,67,975 BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPE NDITURE AND THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED DCIT. THE LEARNED DCIT BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW AMORTIZATION OF LEASE PREMIUM PAID IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS LEASE HOLD PROPERTIES AGGREGATING TO RS.4,0 8,67,975 AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND REDUCE THE TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 2A WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 2 ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ASSUMING WITHOUT ACCEPTING THAT YO UR HONOURS IS OF THE OPINION THAT AMORTIZATION OF LEASE PREMIUM PAID IN RESPECT OF VA RIOUS LEASE HOLD PROPERTIES AGGREGATING TO RS.4,08,67,975 IS IN THE NATURE OF C APITAL EXPENDITURE, THEN THE LEARNED DCIT BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION U/S. 32 OF T HE ACT ON THE SAME AND REDUCE THE TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DCIT HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING EXCLUSION OF PROFITS OF BRANCHES OF THE APPELLANT BANK SITUATED IN COUNTRIES WITH WHOM INDIA HAS ENTERED INTO A DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA) NAMELY UNITED KINGDOM, FRANCE, BELGIUM, KENYA, JAPAN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SINGAPORE, CHINA AND SOUTH AFRICA (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'FOREIGN BRANCHES OF THE APPELLANT BANK') AGGREGATING TO RS. 553,52,09,185 AND THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED DCIT. THE LEARNED DCIT BE DIRECTED TO 4 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR EXCLUSION OF PROFITS OF FOREIGN BRANCHES OF THE APPELLANT BAN K AGGREGATING TO RS.553,52,09,185 AND REDUCE THE TOTA L INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DCIT HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST OF RS.1 50,13,00,000 PAID ON GOVERNMENT AND OTHER APPROVED SECURITIES PURCHASED DURING FY 2013-14 AND HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AS ON MARCH 31, 2014 AND THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED DCIT. THE LEARNED DCIT BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST OF RS.150,13,00,000 PAID ON GOVERNMENT AND OTHER APPROVED SECURITIES PU RCHASED DURING FY 2013-14 AND HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AS ON MARCH 31, 2014 AS A DEDUCTI ON AND REDUCE THE TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 4A WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 4 ABOVE, ON THE FAC TS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ASSUMING WITHOUT ACCEPTING THA T YOUR HONOURS IS OF THE OPINION THAT BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST OF RS.150,13,00,000 PAID ON GOVERNMENT AND OTHER APPRO VED SECURITIES PURCHASED DURING FY 2013-14 AND HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AS ON MARCH 31, 2014 IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION, THEN THE LEARNED DCI T BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW SUCH DEDUCTION IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, I.E., AY 2015-16, BEING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CORRESPONDING INTEREST RECEIVED ON SUCH SECURITIES IS OFFERED TO TAX. 4B WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 4 AND 4A ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ASSUMING WITH OUT ACCEPTING THAT YOUR HONOURS IS OF THE OPINION THAT BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST OF RS.15 0,13,00,000 PAID ON GOVERNMENT AND OTHER APPROVED SECURITIES PURCHASED DURING FY 2013- 14 AND HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AS ON MARCH 31, 2014 IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION, THEN THE LEARNED DCIT BE DIRECTED TO DECREASE / INCREASE THE PROFITS / (LOSS), RESPECTIV ELY, ON SALE OR MATURITY OR REDEMPTION OR TRANSFER IN ANY MANNER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF SUCH SECURITIES BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CORRESPONDING BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST DISALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF PURCHASE OF SUCH SECURITIES AND REDUCE THE TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE APPELLANT BANK RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, AL TER, AMEND AND DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND(S) BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARIN G. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS R EADS AS UNDER: - 1. ASSUMING WITHOUT ACCEPTING IT IS HELD THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC.115JB ARE APPLICABLE TO THE RESPONDENT BANK'S CASE, THEN ON THE FACTS AND IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT BANK SUBMITS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXP ENDITURE RELATABLE TO INCOME EXEMPT U/S. 10 ON THE BASIS OF 1% OF EXEMPT INCOME IS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE. THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS 'DCIT'} BE DIRECTED TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE RELA TABLE TO INCOME EXEMPT U/S. 10 ON A REASONABLE BASIS AND REDUCE THE BOOK PROFITS ACCORD INGLY. 2. ASSUMING WITHOUT ACCEPTING IT IS HELD THAT THE P ROVISIONS OF SEC.115JB ARE APPLICABLE TO THE RESPONDENT BANK'S CASE, THEN ON THE FACTS AND IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DCIT HAS ERRED IN ADDING BACK THE PROVISION FOR WAGE REVISION OF RS.269,51,00,000 WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. THE L EARNED DCIT BE DIRECTED NOT TO ADD BACK THE PROVISION FOR WAGE REV ISION OF RS.269,51,00,000 AND REDUCE THE BOOK PROFITS ACCORDINGLY. 5 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 1.2 THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI [ AO] IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 29/03/2016 W HEREIN THE LOSS WAS DETERMINED AT RS.1189.97 CRORES AFTER CERTAIN ADJUS TMENTS / DISALLOWANCES AS AGAINST LOSS OF RS.2187.39 CRORES E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29/11/2014 WHICH WAS LATER ON REVISED T O RS.2167.65 CRORES. THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB WERE DETERMINED AT RS.3352.57 CRORES AS AGAINST RS.2673.16 CRORES COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS LATER REVISED TO RS.3082.62 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE, BEING P UBLIC SECTOR BANK, IS STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND OTHER RELATED FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES. AS EVIDENT FROM GROUNDS OF AP PEALS, THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS / ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES ARE THE SUBJ ECT MATTER OF CROSS- APPEALS: NO. NATURE OF ADDITION AMOUNT RS. (ROUNDED OFF) 1. DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A RS.65.43 LACS 2. AMORTIZATION OF LEASE PREMIUM RS.408.67 LACS 3. INCOME FOR FOREIGN BRANCHES / FOREIGN INCOME RS.55352.09 LACS 4. BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST ON SECURITIES RS.15013 LACS 5. PROVISION MADE FOR WAGE ARREARS RS.26951 LACS 6. APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB NA THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ABOVE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN ENUMERATED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 2.1 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT TRANSPIRED TH AT THE ASSESSEE EARNED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.65.47 CRORES AND OFFERED SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE AGAINST THE SAME U/S 14A FOR RS.21.78 LACS. THE LD. AO, CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN OTHER 6 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 YEARS, ESTIMATED THE SAME @1% AND WORKED OUT DISALL OWANCE OF RS.65.47 LACS. AFTER ADJUSTING SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.21.78 LACS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT I.E. RS.43.69 LACS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS AS WELL AS WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB. 2.2 THE SECOND ADDITION STEM FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AMORTIZATION OF LEASE PREMIUM OF RS.408.67 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF LEASEHOLD LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AO, TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, DISALLOWED THE SAME. 2.3 THE THIRD ADDITION IS RELATED WITH INCOME OF FO REIGN BRANCHES FOR RS.553.52 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT EXCLUSION OF THE SAME U/S 90. HOWEVER, LD. AO, IN TERMS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO. S.O.2123(E) DATED 28/08/2008 REJECTED THE AFORESAID EXCLUSION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT ALLOWED THE CREDIT FOR TAXES PA ID IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 2.4 ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS.150.13 CRORES REPRESENT BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF SECURITIES WHICH HAS BEEN C LAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, LD. AO OPINED THAT THE SECURI TIES WERE HELD TILL MATURITY AND CONSTITUTED INVESTMENTS FOR THE BANK A ND COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THEREFORE, THE PURCHA SE PRICE OF THE HTM SECURITIES ALSO INCLUDES THE BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST AND AS SUC H FORMS PART OF CAPITAL OUTLAY. 2.5 THE ASSESSEE MADE A PROVISION OF RS.269.51 CROR E ON ACCOUNT OF WAGE REVISION / ARREARS BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN DISAL LOWED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS AN ADHOC PROVISION AND MERE CONTINGENT LIABILITY IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE ALLOWED U/S 37(1). RESULTAN TLY, THE SAME WAS 7 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 DISALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER NORMAL PROV ISIONS AS WELL AS WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB. 2.6 THE LAST DISPUTE IS WITH RESPECT TO APPLICABILI TY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THESE PROVISIONS WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BANK . HOWEVER, LD. AO OPINED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB WERE AP PLICABLE TO EVERY ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE SAME WITH P ARTIAL SUCCESS BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE IMPUGNED ORDE R DATED 21/06/2017. THE LD. CIT(A), RELYING UPON EARLIER YEARS APPELLATE O RDERS, CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCES / ADDITIONS LISTED AT SERIAL NOS. 1 T O 4 ABOVE BUT DELETED DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION MADE FOR WAGE ARREARS. TH E FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALSO HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN B Y LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE CROSS-APPEALS BEFOR E US. 4.1 THE RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES, AT THE OUTSET, CONVERGED ON THE POINT THAT ALL THE ISSUES ARISING UNDER THESE APPEALS ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE, LATEST BEING ITA NOS. 3449/MUM/2017 & OTHERS FOR AY 2013-1 4 ORDER DATED 20/12/2018. THE COPY OF THE SAME BEEN PLACED ON REC ORD IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID SUBMISSIONS. 4.2 WHILE CONCEDING THE SAME, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [AR], SHRI C.NARESH, PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE SEEK CERTAIN RECTIFICATION IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L FOR AY 2013-14 VIDE MA NO.90/MUM/2019 WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON 05 /04/2019 AND 8 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 THEREFORE, THE APPEALS MAY BE KEPT PENDING TILL THE OUTCOME OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. PER CONTRA , LD. CIT-DR, SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR , SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS NEED NOT BE KEPT IN ABEY ANCE AND MAY BE DISPOSED-OFF AS PER THE LATEST ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L. OUR ATTENTION IS BROUGHT TO THE FACT THAT EARLY HEARING WAS GRANTED IN THE APPEALS BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH AFTER DUE DELIBERATIONS WITH ASSESSE ES COUNSEL AND THEREFORE, THE APPEALS HAVE TO BE DISPOSED-OFF ACCO RDING OF DISCIPLINE OF PRECEDENTS. THE LD. CIT-DR FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY UNDER LAW TO SEEK RE CTIFICATION IN THE RELEVANT ORDERS AS PER THE ORDERS / DIRECTIONS OF A PPELLATE AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. THE UNDIS PUTED POSITION THAT EMERGES IS THAT ALL THE ISSUES UNDER APPEAL ARE STA TED TO BE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE AND THERE IS NO CHANGE IN MATERIAL FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANC ES IN THE IMPUGNED AY. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT EARLY HEARING WAS G RANTED IN THE APPEALS BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH UPON DUE DELIBERATIONS WITH R ESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES. THE ONLY CONCERN RAISED BY LD. AR IS THE FACT THAT THE APPEALS MAY BE KEPT PENDING TILL THE OUTCOME OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE FIN D THAT AS OF TODAY, THE LATEST DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2013-14 HOLD S THE GROUND AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO KEEP THE DECISION IN ABEYANC E. IF AT ALL ANY AMENDMENT IS MADE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2013-14 IN TERMS OF ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE CONSEQUEN CES WOULD FOLLOW AS PER LAW. AT THE SAME TIME, KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONC ERN RAISED BY LD. AR, WE DIRECT THE LD. AO TO CONSIDER THE OUTCOME OF MIS CELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, IF ANY, WHENEVER THE SAME ARE ADJUDIC ATED AND POINTED OUT 9 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE PROCEE D TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES AS FOLLOWS. ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.6077/MUM/2017 6.1 THE MATTER OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A STANDS RESTO RED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO ON SIMILAR LINES AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF TR IBUNAL IN AY 2013-14, WHICH, FOR EASE OF REFERENCE, COULD BE EXTRACTED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 8. COMING TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IN ITA.NO. 3449/MUM/2017, THE FIRST ISSUE IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA.NO.5175/MUM/2016 DATED 30. 11.2018 WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ON THE SUBMISSIONS BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT IT HAD HUGE SURPL US FUNDS TO MAKE INVESTMENTS AND THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED EITHER ON IN TEREST OR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. THUS, FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA.NO. 5175/MUM/2016 DATED 30.11.2018, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE AFRESH KEEPING IN VIEW THE DIRECTIONS BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. GROU ND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1 & 1A OF ASSESSEES APPEA L STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6.2 THE ASSESSEES SECOND GROUND QUA AMORTIZATION OF LEASE PREMIUM STANDS DISMISSED IN VIEW OF TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR AY 2013-14 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: - 9. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RELATING TO AMORTIZATION OF LEASE PREMIUM. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT, IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AG AINST ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA.NO.5175/MUM/2016 DATED 30.11.2018 AT PARAS 12 TO 17. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION , WE UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 6.3 THE ASSESSEES GROUND QUA INCOME OF FOREIGN BRANCHES STANDS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO ON SIMILAR LINE S AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF 10 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 TRIBUNAL IN AY 2013-14, WHICH, FOR EASE OF REFERENC E, COULD BE EXTRACTED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH WHILE DISPOSING O FF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED MATERIALS ON RECORD. NO DOUBT, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004 05, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 04, HAS HELD THAT INCOME OF FOREIGN BRANCHES CANNOT BE INCLUDED FOR COMPUTIN G THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION , THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT Y EARS 200910 AND 201112 AS WELL. HOWEVER, FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT A PPEARS THAT THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPEAL IN ITA NO.6016/MUM./2011, HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC GROUND CHALLENGING THE EXCLUSION OF INCOME OF FOREI GN BRANCHES IN VIOLATION OF CENTRAL GOVT. NOTIFICATION NO.S.O. 2123(E), DATED 2 8TH AUGUST 2008, HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT DELIB ERATED ON THE TRUE IMPORT AND IMPACT OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION ON THE TAXABILITY O F THE INCOME OF FOREIGN BRANCHES KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(3) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR IS THE SITUATION IN THE APPEAL ORDERS PASSED FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSE SSMENT YEARS I.E., A.Y. 200910 AND 201112. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE, IN CAS E OF ESSAR OIL LTD. (SUPRA) THE COORDINATE BENCH AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE PROV ISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 90(3) OF THE ACT AND CENTRAL GOVT. NOTIFICA TION DATED 28TH AUGUST 2008, REFERRED TO ABOVE, HAS HELD THAT AFTER ASSESSMENT Y EAR 200405 INCOME OF THE FOREIGN BRANCHES WOULD BE INCLUDIBLE IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CHARGEABILITY TO TAX IN INDIA. IT IS RELEVANT TO OB SERVE, THOUGH, IN THE CASE OF ESSAR OIL LTD. (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HON'BL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR SUBSEQUENT A SSESSMENT YEAR, THE TRIBUNAL TAKING NOTE OF THE CHANGE IN LEGAL POSITIO N ARISING DUE TO SECTION 90(3) R/W THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO.91/2008, DATED 28TH AUGUST 2008, HELD THAT INCOME OF FOREIGN BRANCHES SHALL BE INCLU DED IN THE TOTAL INCOME CHARGEABLE IN INDIA UNDER THE ACT FROM ASSESSMENT Y EAR 200405 ONWARDS. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE COORDINATE B ENCH IN BANK OF BARODA V/S ACIT, IN ITA NO.2927/MUM./2011, DATED 25TH JULY 201 4, EXPRESSED SIMILAR VIEW. IT IS RELEVANT TO OBSERVE, NEITHER THE EFFECT / IMPACT OF SECTION 90(3) R/W CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO.S.O. 2123(E) DAT ED 28TH AUGUST 2008, NOR THE DECISIONS OF ESSAR OIL LTD. (SUPRA) AND BANK OF BARODA (SUPRA) WERE TAKEN NOTE OF OR DELIBERATED UPON WHILE DECIDING THE ISSU E IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. SIMPLY RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL ISSUE ARISING IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE F OR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 01 AND 2003 04, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT IS FURTHER RELEVANT TO OBSERVED, THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE SI NCE PERTAINED TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 200001 AND 2003 04, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT NEVER HAD ANY OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE TAXABILITY OF INCOME IN FOREIGN BRANCHES IN INDIA KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(3) R/W GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION 11 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 NO.S.O. 2123(E) DATED 28TH AUGUST 2008. IN THE AFOR ESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY EARLIER DECISIONS OF T HE TRIBUNAL. IN OUR VIEW, THE ISSUE HAS TO BE DECIDED KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISI ON OF SECTION 90(3) READ WITH CENTRAL GOVT. NOTIFICATION NO S.O. 2123(E) DATED 28 TH AUGUST 2008 AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS CITED BY LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE. HOWEVER, IT NEEDS TO BE OBSERVED, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE US AGAINST THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISIONS OF ESSAR OIL LTD. (S UPRA) AND BANK OF BARODA LTD. (SUPRA) APPEARS TO HAVE NOT BEEN MADE BEFORE THE DE PARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES, MAY BE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE THOUGHT THE ISSUE TO BE COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN ITS OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPIN ION, THE ASSESSEE DESERVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE BEFOR E THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES THAT THE INCOME OF THE FOREIGN BRANCHES ARE NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA NOTWITHSTANDING T HE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO.S.O. 2123(E) DATED 28TH AUGUST 2008 R/W SECTION 90(3) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF ESSAR OIL LTD. (SUP RA) AND BANK OF BARODA LTD. (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD T O THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE RE STORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION, KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, AFTER PRO VIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6.4 THE LAST GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATING T O BROKEN-PERIOD INTEREST STANDS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO ON SIMILAR LINES AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL IN AY 2013-14, WHICH, FO R EASE OF REFERENCE, COULD BE EXTRACTED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 16. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, WHEREIN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FI LE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 29. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS COULD BE SEEN, IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSI DERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12 , IN ITA NO.4357 AND 4491/MUM./2016, DATED 25TH MAY 2018. THE TRIBUNAL A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES RESTORED THE ISSUE TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OBSERVING AS UNDER: 38. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED MATERIALS ON RECORD. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE, IT I S NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE EXACT NATURE OF BROKEN PERIOD INTERE ST. AS MANDATED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, EVERY BANK HAS TO MAINTA IN STATUTORY LIQUIDITY 12 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 RATIO. FOR THAT PURPOSE BANKS INVEST IN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. THEREFORE, DEPENDING ON THE REQUIREMENT A BANK PURC HASES AND SELLS GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. GENERALLY, INTEREST IN GOVER NMENT SECURITIES IS PAYABLE ON HALF YEARLY BASIS. WHEN GOVERNMENT SECUR ITIES ARE TRADED THE PURCHASER HAS TO PAY TO THE SELLER NOT ONLY THE PUR CHASE PRICE OF THE SECURITIES BUT ALSO THE INTEREST ACCRUED FROM THE G OVERNMENT SECURITIES FROM THE LAST DUE DATE OF THE INTEREST TILL THE DAT E OF PURCHASE OF THE SECURITIES. THIS INTEREST FROM THE LAST DUE DATE TI LL THE DATE OF PURCHASE IS REFERRED TO AS BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST. WHILE THE PU RCHASER OF THE GOVERNMENT SECURITY PAYS THE BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST THE SELLER RECEIVES IT. IT IS EVIDENT ON RECORD, ASSESSEES CLAIM OF BR OKEN PERIOD INTEREST PAID HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OFFERING BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS. IN OUR VIEW, THE AFORESAID REASONING OF THE DEPARTMENTAL A UTHORITIES DO NOT STAND TO REASON. IF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSISTENTLY FO LLOWING AN ACCOUNTING METHOD AS PER WHICH THE BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST IS O FFERED AS INCOME WHEN IT IS RECEIVED, THE BROKEN INTEREST PAID WHILE PURCHASING THE SECURITIES CANNOT BE DISALLOWED MERELY ON THE REASO NING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SHOWING THE BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS. AS COULD BE SEEN, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 1ST AUGUST 2016, AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SAID COURT IN CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (SUPRA) HAS REJECTED REVENUES APPEAL A GAINST ALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST PAID. WHILE DOING SO, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO UPH ELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HOLDING THAT THE BROKEN PERIOD INTE REST INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED ON DUE BASIS INSTEAD OF ACCRUAL BASIS. IT IS EVIDENT, THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT W AS NEITHER REFERRED TO NOR EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISIONS OF TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE AND ONL Y AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 30. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION O F THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRES H ADJUDICATION IN TERMS WITH OUR DIRECTIONS THEREIN. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE RE STORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, KEEPING I N VIEW THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12 & 2012-13. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 6.5 RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.5978/MUM/2017 7.1 THE SOLE GROUND IN REVENUES APPEAL CONCERNS WI TH APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS G ROUND STANDS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO ON SIMILAR LINES AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL IN AY 2013-14, WHICH, FOR EASE OF REFERENCE, COULD BE EXTRACTED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 29. HOWEVER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE DECISION OF THE KO LKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN RENDERED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND T HE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 115JB HAVE BEEN INSERTED W.E.F 01.04.201 3 BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 WHICH ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THEREF ORE, LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN APPLYING THE SAID DECISION FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 WIT HOUT EXAMINING THE IMPLICATION OF EXPLANATION 3 TO 115JB TO THE ASSESSEE. ON A READI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMIN ED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 115JB TO THE ASSESSEE B ANK. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE OF WHETHER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 115JB ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BANK OR NOT IN VIEW OF I NSERTION OF THE EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION. THUS, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO A.O T O EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE, THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA BENCH AND PARTICULARLY THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SEC TION 115JB WHICH WERE INSERTED W.E.F. 01.04.2013 AND APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. NEEDLESS T O SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD T O THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHICH MAKES ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS INFRUCTUOUS. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT IF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB ARE ADJUDIC ATED TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, THE COMPUTATION OF THE SAME SHALL BE MADE AS PER LAW. 7.2 THE CROSS APPEALS AS WELL AS CROSS-OBJECTIONS S TANDS DISPOSED-OFF IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. 14 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 CONCLUSION 8. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS STANDS DISMISSED, BEING INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % MUMBAI; DATED : 28/02/2019 SR. PS:- JAISY VARGHESE 4567895:8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. $$% ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. $$% / CIT CONCERNED 5. & ''() , $) , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ' +,- / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / % (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI. 15 BANK OF INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 S R. NO. DETAILS DATE I NITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED DIRECTLY TYPE D ON COMPUTER / LAPTOP SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT DICTATED ON NOT APPLICABLE SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR NOT APPLICABLE SR.PS/ PS 4 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 6 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 7 ORDER PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER