District Cooprative Ltd. Barabanki, Barabanki V. ITO VI, Lucknow

ITA 633/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 63323714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARE BEING DISPOSED OF
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.633/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 & I.T.A. NO.75/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007 - 08 DISTT. CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., FAIZABAD ROAD, BARABANKI. PAN:AAAAD2777N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - V(1), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 05/09/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND DATED 19/12/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 I. E. I.T.A. NO.633/LKW/2011 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEAL - II) LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPELLANTS APPEAL BECAUSE APPELLANT IS DOING HIS BUSINESS FULLY UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. APPELLANT BY SHRI B. P. YADAV, COST ACCOUNTANT RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAJNISH YADAV, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 27/11/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 6 /01/2015 2 2. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEAL - II) LUCKNOW HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE VERSION OF APPELLANTS THIS DISALLOWING DEDUCTIONS U/S 36(1)( VII A ). 3. THAT THE APPELLANTS LOSSES RAISED BY MAKING PROVISION THROUGH NABARD. 4. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEAL - II) LUCKNOW HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ORDER PAST BY THE LEARNED I.T.O. WITHOUT CONSIDERING FACTS OF APPELLANTS CASE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANTS PROVIDES BANKING FACILITIES TO THEIR MEMBERS/BORROWERS GUIDELINES RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AS WELL AS OTHER BANKS. THE LEAR NED C.I.T.(APPEAL - II) LUCKNOW DID NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT OF THE CASE. IT'S UNJUSTIFIED AND AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEAL - II) LUCKNOW HAS NOT APPLIED HIS JUDICIAL CONSCIOUSNESS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THE CONFIRMING THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY I.T.O. 7. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEAL - II) LUCKNOW IS ARBITRARY AND IN EQUITABLE. 3. SIMILARLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 I.E. I.T.A. NO.75/LKW/2012 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, LUCKNOW (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE APPELLANT IS WORKING AS PER THE DIRE CTION OF RBI AND ALL THE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE FOR SCHEDULED AND NON SCHEDULED BANKS ARE ALSO APPLICABLE ON THE APPELLANT BANK. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS.1,18,94,719/ - MADE BY THE LD A.O. BY OBSERVING THAT THE DEDUCTIONS U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT BANK. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT PROVIDING THE APPELLANT REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ITS SAY AND TO MAKE COMPLIANCES OF THE REASONS BEING RELIED UPON BY HIM IN MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 3 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR , THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN BACK THE PROVISION AND INCLUDED THESE AMOUNTS IN INCOME AND HENCE , SUITABLE DIRECTION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE INCOME SO DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR OF WRITING BACK OF THE PROVISION. CONSIDERING THIS SUBMISSION OF LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN BOTH T HE YEARS WITH THE DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IF THIS IS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THESE PROVISIONS WERE WRITTEN BACK BY THE ASSESSEE AND INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS INCOME THEN IN THAT YEAR , THE INCOME SHOULD BE REDUCE D TO THE EXTENT IT IS FOUND THAT THERE IS DOUBLE ADDITION, ONCE BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND AGAIN ON ACCOUNT OF WRITING BACK OF THE PROVISION IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR BUT WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THI S ASPECT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN BACK THE PROVISION BY SHOWING THAT SUCH WRITING BACK OF PROVISION IS FOR THE SAME PROVISION, WHICH IS BEING DISALLOWED IN THESE TWO YEARS. WITH THESE OBSERVATIO NS, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN BOTH THE YEARS. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 6 /01/2015 *C.L.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