Punjab & Sind Bank, V. DCIT, Spl. Range-14,

ITA 6444/DEL/1993

• Counselvise Citation: 644420114 RSA 1993
• Duration Of Justice: 18 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 1987-1988
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-1993
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SAKSENA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH DELHI BENCH DELHI BENCH DELHI BENCH C CC C : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND , VICE PRESIDENT AND , VICE PRESIDENT AND , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6444/DEL/1993 ITA NO.6444/DEL/1993 ITA NO.6444/DEL/1993 ITA NO.6444/DEL/1993 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1987 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1987 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1987 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1987- -- -88 8888 88 M/S PUNJAB & SIND BANK, M/S PUNJAB & SIND BANK, M/S PUNJAB & SIND BANK, M/S PUNJAB & SIND BANK, H.O. A/C & AUDIT H.O. A/C & AUDIT H.O. A/C & AUDIT H.O. A/C & AUDIT DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT, 38 3838 38- -- -39, NA 39, NA 39, NA 39, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL RAINA INDUSTRIAL RAINA INDUSTRIAL RAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA, AREA, AREA, AREA, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE SPECIAL RANGE- -- -14, 14, 14, 14, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIVEK GUPTA, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K.SAKSENA, CIT-DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER A.D.JAIN, JM : PER A.D.JAIN, JM : PER A.D.JAIN, JM : PER A.D.JAIN, JM : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 1987-88, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- A) INTEREST SUSPENSE A/C RS.4,99,27,967.00 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING HAS PASSED A NO N- SPEAKING ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN AS MUCH AS : I) IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT NO REAL INCOME ACCRUED O R AROSE. II) THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT 158 ITR 102 WAS NOT APPLICABLE, THE FACTS IN THAT CASE AND THIS CAS E BEING POLES APART. III) THE APPELLANT BANK, HAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED A METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY THAT WHENEVER A RECOVERABLE DEBT BACKED WITH SUFFICIENT SECURITY IS AVAILABLE, THE INTEREST SUSPENSE MERELY PRESENTS A MEMORANDUM OF ITA-6444/DEL/1993 2 PARTIES WITH REGARD TO WHEN NO REAL INCOME AROSE. THE ORDER OF THE C.I.T. IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS IS A NON- SPEAKING ONE AND IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE FACTS PL ACED BEFORE HIM AND IS BAD IN LAW. B) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IV, HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- 1. SHORT FALL IN THE MARKET VALUE OF SECURITIES. - RS.4,29,64,559.00 2. DEPRECIATION OF SECURITIES. - RS.1,82,532.00 3. DONATION U/S 80-G. - RS.58,671.00 4. INTER CORPORATE DIVIDEND U/S 80-M. - RS.47,133.00 2. APROPOS GROUND NO.(A), THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR AY 1984 -85 (COPY AT APB-88) PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.3858 /DEL/93. THEREIN, DEALING WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND, THE TRIBUN AL HAS REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 1982-83 & 83-84. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS THERE BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE SAME STANDS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH CERTAIN DIRECTION. FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REMAINING THE SAME HEREIN ALSO WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECID ING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF DIRECTION GIVEN FO R A.Y. 1982-83 AND 1983-84, OF COURSE AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE FACTS REMAINING THE SAME, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AFORESAID TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR AY 1984-85, FOR THIS YE AR ALSO, THE ITA-6444/DEL/1993 3 MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AS PER THE ORDER IN AY 1984-85. 4. SO FAR AS REGARDS GROUND NO.B(1), THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE TRIBUNAL OR DER (COPY AT APB-135 TO 143), FOR AY 1986-87 IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E IN ITA NO.6597/DEL/94. THEREIN, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE IT AFRE SH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK 240 ITR 355 (SC). THE TRIBUNAL H AS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE REJECTED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE SECURITIES WERE BEING VALUED AS PER THE NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE R.B.I. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHET HER SUCH SECURITIES WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF STOCK IN TRADE OR BY WAY OF INVESTMENT. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHAT WAS THE MARKET VALUE ON THE LAST D ATE OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR. IN OUR VIEW THE MATTER SHO ULD GO BACK FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT ON THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS S ET ASIDE ON THIS ISSUE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGH T OF THE AFORESAID SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT AFTER EXAMINING AL L THE NECESSARY FACTS. 5. HERE ALSO, SINCE THE FACTS ARE SAME AS FOR THE E ARLIER YEAR, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO, AS DO NE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 1986-87 (SUPRA), TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN UNI TED COMMERCIAL BANK (SUPRA). ITA-6444/DEL/1993 4 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT THE BAR THAT GROUND NO.B(2) IS NOT PRESSED. THE SAME IS RE JECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. APROPOS GROUND NO. B(3) & B(4), THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENC E WITH REGARD TO THESE ISSUES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE WAS, IN FACT, FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE IS, HOW EVER, AGREEABLE THAT IF THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER, HE WILL AGAIN ASSIST THE FAIR ASSESSMENT BY FURNISHING PROP ER EVIDENCE. 8. THE LEARNED DR DOES NOT OPPOSE THE REMITTANCE OF THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCOR DINGLY, THESE ISSUES ARE ALSO REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ON PROVIDING DUE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED, AS INDICATED ABOVE. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 21 ST MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (G.D.AGRAWAL (G.D.AGRAWAL (G.D.AGRAWAL (G.D.AGRAWAL) )) ) (A.D.JAIN) (A.D.JAIN) (A.D.JAIN) (A.D.JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21.03.2012 VK. ITA-6444/DEL/1993 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR