DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER V. M/S AJMER URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., Ajmer

ITA 880/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2241 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Bonafide mistake; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKWY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA. NO. 880/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, AJMER CUKE VS. M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA -@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAABT2333H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 831/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER CUKE VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, AJMER LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA -@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAABT2333H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/01/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/01/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AJMER DATED 28.09.2017 ITA NO. 880 & 831 /JP/2017 DCIT, AJMER VS. M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHEREIN THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- ITA. NO. 880/JP/2017(REVENUES GROUNDS OF APPEAL): ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER ERRED IN:- I. CANCELLING THE PENALTY LEVIED ON A/C OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS. 47,58,385/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE QUANTUM ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). II. CANCELLING THE PENALTY LEVIED ON A/C OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS. 47,58,385/- WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESS DEDUCTION UNDER THE CLAUSE 36(1)(VIIA). ITA NO. 831/JP/2017 (ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL): I. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE PENALTY ON SUCH TDS ADDITION OF RS. 368896/- ALREADY SHOWN AND ASSESSED AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN. THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS ALREADY IN FILE OF ASSESSEE AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER OUR ARGUMENTS AND COPIES OF RETURNS FILED FOR AY 08-09. THE EXACT DIFFERENCE OF TDS AMOUNT SHOWS OUR BONAFIDE MISTAKE IN FILING OF RETURN IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 148 BASED ON AUDITED STATEMENT. THERE WAS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION IN SHOWING LESS INCOME BY SUCH TDS WHICH WAS ALREADY SHOWN AND ASSESSED BY AO MUCH EARLIER TO THIS ASSESSMENT. 2. IN ITS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ITA NO. 880 & 831 /JP/2017 DCIT, AJMER VS. M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER 3 AMOUNTING TO RS. 47,58,385/- WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 368,896/- MADE BY THE AO TO THE RETURNED INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 WAS COMPLETED WHEREIN THE AO MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 47,58,385/- AND ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 368,896/-. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE SEPARATELY INITIATED BY ISSUANCE OF A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30.03.2012. 4. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND EVEN THE GROUND RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 368,896/- WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS HAVE THUS ATTAINED FINALITY IN ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER APPEAL BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT FROM THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, IT IS CLEAR THAT INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXPLANATION PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY. FURTHER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ITA NO. 880 & 831 /JP/2017 DCIT, AJMER VS. M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER 4 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THAT ITSELF SHOWS THAT PARTICULARS RELATING TO BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WERE INACCURATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO LEVIED PENALTY @ 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,84,330/-. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WAS SURRENDERED AFTER THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2007-08. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED U/S 143(3), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ALLOWED SUCH PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE NOW IN RESPECT OF SUCH PROVISION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CONCEALING PARTICULARS OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNDER SIMILAR AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS, THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2007-08 HAS DELETED THE PENALTY. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN AY 2007-08 DELETED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. REGARDING PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS. 368,896/-, THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND IN THIS REGARD, THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME (RS. 1,06,89,440) AND THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 (RS. 1,03,20,544), THE APPELLANT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS CONTENDED THAT THE RETURN IN ITA NO. 880 & 831 /JP/2017 DCIT, AJMER VS. M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER 5 COMPLIANCE TO 148 NOTICE WAS FILED AS PER AUDITED BALANCE SHEET &/OR RBI GUIDELINES AND HENCE THE EXPENDITURE RS. 368896/- WAS ALSO QUITE CORRECT. IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUBMISSION, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,68,896/- MADE BY THE AO HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,68,896/- WAS AS PER THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND RBI GUIDELINES, THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,68,896/- IS CONFIRMED. 8. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WERE FILED IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES CROSS APPEAL WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 368,896/- REPRESENTS THE TDS ON INTEREST INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE INTEREST INCOME WAS INADVERTENTLY SHOWN AT NET OF TDS RATHER THAN SHOWING GROSS OF TDS. HOWEVER, WHILE FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE SAID INCOME (GROSS OF INTEREST) AND OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE FILING THE RETURN PURSUANT TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148, THE RETURN WAS FILED BASED ON THE SAME AUDITED FINANCIALS WHERE THE INTEREST INCOME WAS SHOWN NET OF TDS, HOWEVER, UNLIKE THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, SAID INTEREST INCOME WAS NOT SEPARATELY REPORTED TO TAX. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE WHEREIN THE SAID INTEREST INCOME WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT REPORTED TO TAX. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO. 880 & 831 /JP/2017 DCIT, AJMER VS. M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER 6 THERE WAS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION IN SHOWING LESS INCOME BY TDS AMOUNT AND IN ANY CASE, IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME MORE SO WHEN THE SAME WAS OFFERED AND BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE MATTER AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO FAR AS LEVY OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT IS CONCERNED. IN RESPECT OF OTHER ADDITION, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR, PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. FIRSTLY, IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS VERIFIED SUCH PROVISION AND IT WAS HELD THAT IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 36(I)(VIIA), SUCH PROVISION SHOULD NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE ASSETS CLASSIFIED BY THE RBI AS DOUBTFUL ASSETS OR LOSS ASSETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDELINES ISSUED IN THIS BEHALF. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT AS PER THE RBI REPORT, SUCH ASSETS BALANCE COMES TO RS 1900.36 LACS AND SINCE THE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS 59.81 LACS IS LESS THAN 5% OF SUCH ASSETS, THE PROVISION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND ACCEPTABLE AND NO ADJUSTMENT WAS PROPOSED. HOWEVER, IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO REFERRED TO THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(I)(VIIA) AND OBSERVED THAT SUCH PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT EXCEED 7.5% OF THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED BEFORE MAKING ANY ITA NO. 880 & 831 /JP/2017 DCIT, AJMER VS. M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER 7 DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE AND RESTRICTED THE PROVISION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,22,615/- INSTEAD OF RS. 59,81,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THEREFORE A CASE WHERE THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE MATTER OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) IN THE ORIGINAL AS WELL AS REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE CLAIM WAS HELD ALLOWABLE IN FULL WHEREAS IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE CLAIM WAS PARTIALLY DISALLOWED. WHILE ARRIVING AT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SAME PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FACTS WERE CONSIDERED WHICH WERE ON RECORD AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. IN OUR VIEW, THE SAME CANNOT BE BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH NECESSARY PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS ALL NECESSARY PARTICULARS TOWARDS PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WERE EMERGING FROM THE ASSESSEES TAX FILINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO. FURTHER, ONCE THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE MATTER FINALLY IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS ITS GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE SAME BY ITSELF CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. 12. FURTHER WE FIND THAT UNDER THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH (SPEAKING THROUGH ONE OF US) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (IN ITA NO. 861/JP/2013 DATED 20.07.2016) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE LEVY OF PENALTY HAS BEEN DELETED. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE CONTAINED AT PARA 2.5 OF THE ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. THE ITA NO. 880 & 831 /JP/2017 DCIT, AJMER VS. M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER 8 AO HAS RELIED SOLELY ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, HE WAS SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALED THE TAX, THEREFORE IT IS LIABLE FOR PENAL ACTION U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT FOR A.Y. 2007-08. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN HOW BY MAKING THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CLAIM WAS MADE FOR LIABILITY DETERMINED AS PER THE RBI GUIDELINES AND AUDITORS HAVE CONCURRED WITH THE SAID CLAIM OF LIABILITY OF THE BANK. FURTHER, AS THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL LOSS, THERE WAS NO TAX BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID EXPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE OR MALAFIDE AND ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE SAME ANALOGY AND FINDING WILL APPLY IN RESPECT OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE GRATUITY FUND. FURTHER, THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (2010) 3 TAXMAN 47, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS HARSHVARDHAN CHEMICALS AND MINERALS 259 ITR 212 (RAJ) SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COOPERATIVE BANK. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 880 & 831 /JP/2017 DCIT, AJMER VS. M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER 9 13. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH REFERRED SUPRA, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE DELETION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. 14. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 368,896/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME, THE AO HAS MERELY COMPARED THE INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND THE INCOME DECLARED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND HAS BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX. THE NATURE OF THE AMOUNT IS THE INTEREST INCOME EQUIVALENT TO TDS ON INTEREST. IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN AS NET OF TDS RATHER THAN GROSS OF TDS. IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS SEPARATELY OFFERED THE SAID AMOUNT TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN FILED PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME BASIS THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND DIDNT OFFER THE SAME SEPARATELY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME AND THE BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE WHEREIN THE SAID INTEREST INCOME WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT REPORTED TO TAX. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION IN SHOWING LESS INCOME BY TDS AMOUNT AND IN ANY CASE, IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME MORE SO WHEN THE SAME WAS OFFERED AND BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND THAT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS IN RELATION TO SUCH INTEREST INCOME WERE ON RECORD AND IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ITA NO. 880 & 831 /JP/2017 DCIT, AJMER VS. M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER 10 THE EXPLANATION SO OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND ACCEPTABLE. IN THE RESULT, THE PENALTY SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS- APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/01/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKWY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 09/01/2018. * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, AJMER 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S AJMER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 880 & 831 /JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR