Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Murshidabad V. CIT -14, KOLKATA, Murshidabad

ITA 877/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1734 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G MALLIKARJUNA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M.BA LAGANESH, AM] I.T.A NO. 877/KOL/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-1 1 BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK -VS.- C.I.T., KOL-14, MURSHIDABAD KOLKATA. [PAN : AAALB 0462 D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI SOUMITR A CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI G.MALLIKARJUNA, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 04.05.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.05.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2015 OF CIT- KOL-14, KOLKATA PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (ACT.). 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE BANK. FOR A.Y.20 10-11 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.NIL. THE ASSE SSMENT WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 08.01.2016 FILED A LETTER DATED 15.01.2016 EXPLAINING THE ASSE SSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION A SUM OF RS.25,57,00,000/- DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT WHICH WAS A PROVISION AND CONTINGENCIES ON ACCOUNT OF ARREAR PAYMENT DUE TO T HE EMPLOYEES CONSEQUENT TO WAGE REVISION. THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATI ON :- THE AMOUNT OF RS 255700000.00 DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 WAS ATTRIBUTED TO IMPENDING WAGE REVISION A ND WAS PAID OUT DURING THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 FROM THE 'PROVISION HELD' ACCOUNT. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS LOADED ONLY ONCE I.E. IN THE FY 2009-10. NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED DURING THE FY 2010-11 ON PAYMENT BASIS. HOWEVER THE PAYMENT IS NOT GOVERNED BY SECTI ON 43B OF THE IT ACT 1961. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT WAGE REVISIONS IN COMMERCIAL BANK S ARE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED TO REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACROSS THE COUNTRY BY VIRTU E OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NIT) CONSTITUTED AND UPHELD BY SUPREME COURT. 2 ITA NO.877/KOL/2015 BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK A.YR.2010-11 2 3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED IN THE AFORESAID LETTER THAT IT WAS CLAIMING A SUM OF RS.,1,30 LAKHS FOR MEETING THE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT LEAVE ENCASHMENT FOR ITS STAFF AND POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE AFORESAID SUM WHATEVER LEAVE ENCASHMENT IS ACTUALLY BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143( 3) OF THE ACT BY ITS ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 IN WHICH THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID TWO ITEMS OF THE DEBIT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 4. THE CIT IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER OF AO DATED 18.03.2013 WAS ERRONEOU S AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :- (I) AS PER POINT NO.8 OF NOTES OF ACCOUNT (SCHEDUL E-17) PROVISION & CONTINGENCIES INCLUDED PROVISION OF RS. 25,57,00,00 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF ARREAR PAYMENT DUE TO WAGES REVISION ALREADY NEGOTIATED IN COMMERCIAL BANKS AND LIKELY TO BE. EXTENDED TO THE BANK ALSO. AS THE WAGE REVIS ION WAS NEGOTIATED ONLY IN COMMERCIAL BANK AND WAS YET TO BE IMPLEMENTED/NEGOT IATED IN CO-OPERATIVE BANK DURING F.Y.2009-10, LIABILITY FOR ARREAR PAYMENT WA S NOT ACCRUED IN F.Y.2009-10. THEREFORE, PROVISION OF RS. 25,57,00,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF ARREAR PAYMENT DUE TO WAGE REVISION WAS AN UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY FOR F. Y.2009-10 AND WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT A .O. FAILED TO DO SO. (II) AS PER POINT NO.6.2 OF THE NOTES ON ACCOUNT (S CHEDULE-17) THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED RS. 1,30,00,000/- FOR MEETING OF LIABILITY OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT ON SUPERANNUATION DURING THE F.Y.2009-10. AS PER PROVI SION OF SECTION 43B OF THE I. T. ACT, DEDUCTION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT IS ALLOWABLE ONLY ON PAYMENT BASIS. THEREFORE, PROVISION OF RS.1,30,00,000/- FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT LIABILITY WERE REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME. BUT A.O. FAILED TO DO SO. (III) FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM (SCHEDULE-12 ) OF BALANCE SHEET THAT THERE WAS CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF RS. 2,55,66,000/- INCLUDED IN THE PROVISION AND CONTINGENCIES, DEBITED IN P & L A/C. THE CONTINGENT LIABILITY IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSE AND IT WAS REQUI RED TO BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. BUT A.O. FAILED TO DO SO. 3 ITA NO.877/KOL/2015 BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK A.YR.2010-11 3 5. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14.07.2011 WAS ISSU ED TO THE ASSESEE ON THE ABOVE ISSUES. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY POINTED OUT THAT :- A) THAT PROVISION & CONTINGENCIES INCLUDED PROVISIO N OF RS.25,57,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ARREAR PAYMENT DUE TO WAGE REVISION. THE SAID AMOUNT OF WAS DEBITED TO P/L A/C. FOR THE A. Y.2010-11 ATTRIBUTED TO IMPENDI NG WAGE REVISION WHICH WAS DONE BY WAY OF BIPARTITE AGREEMENT IN GOVT. BANK AS WELL AS R.R.B. ALSO. THE P & L A/C. WAS ONLY CHARGED ONCE IN THE A. Y.2010- 11 WHEN THE LIABILITY WAS ASCERTAINED AFTER THE BIPARTITE AGREEMENT BY WHICH THE WAGE REVISION WAS ASCERTAINED AT RS. 25.57 CRORES. THE SAID AMOUNT WA S NOT CLAIMED IN THE A. Y.2011- 12 WHEN THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE. WAGE REVISION I N COMMERCIAL BANK ARE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED TO REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACRO SS THE COUNTRY BY VIRTUE OF AWARD PASSED BY THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL{NI T) CONSTITUTED AND UPHELD BY SUPREME COURT. THAT AS THE LIABILITY WAS AN ASCERTA INED LIABILITY AS PER THE WAGE REVISION WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE A. Y.2010-11 IT SH OULD BE ALLOWED AS PER JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CO NTRALS INDIA {P} LTD. VS.CIT REPORTED IN 314 ITR 62 (SC) B) THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED RS. 1,30,00,000/- FOR ME ETING ITS LIABILITY OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT OF SUPERANNUATION DURING THE F. Y. 2009- 10 AND THAT OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT RS.49,86,186/- WAS PAID OUT WITHIN 15 TH OCTOBER, 2010 AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.72,64,923/- WAS PAID WITHIN MARCH, 201 1, THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 72,64,923/- IS DISALLOWED IN THIS YEA R IT MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED IN THE A. Y.2011-12. C) AS PER SCHEDULE-12 OF THE BALANCE SHEET THAT THE RE WAS CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF RS. 2,55,66,000/- WHICH WAS INCLUDED AS PROVISION& CONT INGENCIES LIABILITY WAS NEVER DEBITED IN P& L A/C AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO QUE STION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE AS THE SAID AMOUNT AS IT WAS NEVER CHARGED TO P/L A/C. NEITHER IT WAS ALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE T HE CIT DIRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE AND PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE THREE ITEMS SE T OUT BY CIT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. ACCORDING TO THE CIT THE AO DID NOT MAKE PR OPER ENQUIRIES BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE AFORESAID THREE ASPECTS AND T HE ORDER OF AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE FOL LOWING WERE THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT :- THE FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT: 4 ITA NO.877/KOL/2015 BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK A.YR.2010-11 4 (I) AS PER NOTES OF ACCOUNTS, QUANTUM OF ARREAR PAY ABLE ON ACCOUNT OF WAGE REVISION WAS NEGOTIATED IN COMMERCIAL BANK DURING T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 AND LIKELY TO BE EXTENDED TO THE BANK. AS SUCH, THE QUA NTUM OF ARREAR WAGE WAS YET TO BE IMPLEMENTED/NEGOTIATED IN THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK. HENCE, LIABILITY OF ARREAR PAYMENT WAS NOT ACCRUED OR ASCERTAINED FOR THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2009-10. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O. DID NOT VERIFY THE ISS UE AND TAKE ACTION ACCORDINGLY. (II) AS PER NOTES ON ACCOUNT, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE B ANK WAS VALUING ITS LEAVE ENCASHMENT LIABILITY ON CASH BASIS, IT PROVIDED RS. 1,30,00,000/- FOR MEETING ITS LIABILITY OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT ON SUPERANNUATION DUR ING F. Y. 2009-10. AND AS PER SUBMISSION FILED DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U /S. 263 OF THE 1. T. ACT, SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE DURING THE F.Y. 2010-11 RELEVANT T O THE A.Y. 2011-12. AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 43B OF THE 1. T. ACT, DEDUCTIO N FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT IS ALLOWABLE ONLY ON PAYMENT BASIS. IN COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O. DID NOT VERIFY THE QUANTUM AND PERIOD OF ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE IN THIS REGARD AND TAKE ACTION ACCORDINGLY. (III) AS PER BALANCE SHEET, A CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF RS. 2,55,66,000/- WAS INCLUDED IN 'PROVISION & CONTINGENCIES' WHICH WAS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE CONTINGENT LIABILITY IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPEND ITURE FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSE. IN COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF RS.2.55 CORES AS APPEAR IN IN SCHEDUE-12 IN OFF BALANCE SHE ET ITEM, REPRESENTING BANK GUARANTEE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE CONSTITUENT FOR W HICH P/L A/E. WAS NEVER DEBITED. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O. DID NOT VERIFY THE ISSUE AND TAKE ACTION ACCORDINGLY. 9. IT IS OBSERVED THAT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 18-03-2013 PASSED BY ERSTWHILE I.T.O., WARD-3, MURS HIDABAD AMOUNTS TO INADEQUATE SCRUTINY OF DETAILED FACTS AND MAKING SU CH ASSESSMENT WITHOUT EXAMINATION OF FACTS RENDERING IT ERRONEOUS AND PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN VIEW OF AFORESAID ERRORS, INADEQUACIES AND OMISSION ON PART OF A.O., THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 18-03- 2013 IS CONSIDERED ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 18-03.-2013 IS SET ASIDE WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS AND AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT THE ASSESSEE HA S PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DEDUCTION OF A SUM OF RS.25.57 CRORES ON ACCOU NT OF ARREAR PAYMENT DUE AND 5 ITA NO.877/KOL/2015 BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK A.YR.2010-11 5 PAYABLE CONSEQUENT ON WAGE REVISION WAS AN ASCERTAI NED LIABILITY AND WAS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. IN THIS REGARD THE PRINCIPAL CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS A BIPARTITE AGREEMENT C ONSEQUENT TO WHICH THE LIABILITY IN QUESTION WAS DETERMINED THOUGH FURTHER PROCUREMENT FORMALITIES NEED TO BE COMPLETED. THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 27 TH APRIL, 2010 WAS ENTERED INTO BY A MANAGEMENT OF 46 BANKS REPRESENTED BY THE ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF BANK EMPLOYEES, BANK EMPL OYEES FEDERATION OF INDIA, INDIAN NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES; FEDERATION AND NAT IONAL ORGANISATION OF BANK WORKERS. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH IT WAS A REGIONAL RURAL BANK IT WAS CONTROLLED BY UNION BANK OF INDIA WHICH WAS A PARTY TO THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIVIL APPEAL NO.2218 OF 1999 IN THE CASE OF SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK VS CO-ORD. COMMITTEE OF S.M.G.B.EMPL. UNION & ORS IT H AS BEEN HELD THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PARITY BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMERCIAL BANKS AND THE EMPLOYEES OF THE REGIONAL RURAL BANKS THAT AS AND WHEN THE PAY STRUC TURE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE NATIONALIZED BANKS GOT REVISED ON THE BASIS OF ANY BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT, THE UNION GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE A DECISION SO FAR AS THE EMP LOYEES OF THE REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ARE CONCERNED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SO THA T THE PARITY COULD BE MAINTAINED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESA ID CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ALLOWI NG THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION AND CONTINGENT PA YMENT DUE TO WAGE REVISION WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND NO FAULT COULD BE FOUND IN THE OR DER OF AO. IT WAS HIS FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAS MADE DUE ENQUIRIES BEFOR E COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ON THESE ASPECTS. THEREFORE EXERCISING OF JURISDICTION BY CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMEN T FAILED TO MAKE PROPER AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES ON THIS ISSUE IS UNTENABLE. 6 ITA NO.877/KOL/2015 BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK A.YR.2010-11 6 9. AS FAR AS THE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF LEAVE E NCASHMENT IS CONCERNED THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AGREED THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTI ON 43B(F) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION ON THE SUM WHI CH ASSESSEE HAD PAID ON ACCOUNT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME I.E. 30.09.2010. WITH REGARD TO THE SUM OF RS.2,55,66,000/- DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION AND CONTINGENCY, THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS AGREEABLE FOR AN ADDITION OF THE AFORESAID SUM. GROUND OF APP EAL IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT PRESSED. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT U/S 263 OF TH E ACT. 10. WE HAVE GIVEN A VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION T O THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SO FAR AS INVOKING THE JURISDICTION ON THE ISSUE OF PROVISION FOR ARREAR OF WAGES CONSEQUENT TO WAGE REVISION OF A SUM OF RS.25.57 CRORES IS CONCER NED WE FIND THAT THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS MADE DUE ENQUIRIES ON THIS ASPECT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN A REPLY. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE A BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL BANKS WOULD EQUAL LY APPLY TO THE REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ALSO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ACTION OF THE AO IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION WAS ERRONEOUS. IT WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW WHICH THE AO HAS TAKEN AND JUST BECAUSE CIT DOES NOT AGREE WI TH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE AO JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES LTD. 243 IT R 83 CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. BESIDES THE ABOVE, WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAD MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSM ENT AND SINCE THE CIT HAS INVOKED THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE AO TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRIES THE ACTION OF CIT ON THIS ISSUE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 11. AS FAR AS ISSUE OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF PRO VISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT OF RS.1.30 CRORES IS CONCERNED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 43B(F) OF THE ACT ANY SUM ACTUALLY PAID ON ACCOUNT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE BEFORE FILING THE 7 ITA NO.877/KOL/2015 BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK A.YR.2010-11 7 RETURN OF INCOME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. AS FAR AS DIRECTION OF CIT TO THE AO TO RE-EXAMINE AND REVERIFY THE CONTINGENCIES LIABIL ITY OF RS.2,55,66,000/- INCLUDED IN THE PROVISION UNDER CONTINGENCIES DEBITED IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE LD. COUNSEL DID NOT PRESS THE RELEVANT GROUND OF APPEAL AND WAS AGR EEABLE FOR THE AO MAKING AN ENQUIRY ON THIS ASPECT IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS . HENCE THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE WE PARTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS INDICATED IN THIS ORDER. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12.05.2017. SD/- SD/- [M.BALAGANESH] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12.05.2017. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK, BMC HOUSE, NH-34, P. O. CHUANPUR, NAYASARAK, BERHAMPORE, MURSHIDABAD-742101. 2. C.I.T., KOL-14, KOLKATA. 3. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 8 ITA NO.877/KOL/2015 BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK A.YR.2010-11 8