M/s. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

MA 154/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Canara Bank (formerly Syndicate Bank) seeking rectification of a Tribunal order concerning the applicability of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Initially, the Tribunal had remanded the issue to the CIT(Appeals) based on a decision for AY 2014-15. However, the assessee pointed out that a specific decision for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, which ruled that section 115JB does not apply to banking companies, was overlooked. This decision was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and corrected the order, allowing the assessee's appeal for the specified assessment years.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125241 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2023
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT v. M/s. Syndicate Bank
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 115JB; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MP Nos.153 & 154/Bang/2023 [ in ITA Nos. 227 & 228/Bang/2023 ] Assessment years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s.Canara Bank, Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), FM Wing, Head Office, 112, J C Road, Bangalore – 560 002. PAN: AAACC 6106G Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore. APPLICANT RESPONDENT Applicant by : Shri Ananthan S., Advocate Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member These miscellaneous petitions are by the assessee seeking rectification of common order dated 28.04.2023 passed by this Tribunal for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that in the common order passed by the Tribunal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, the Tribunal MP Nos.153 & 154/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 5 regarding the applicability of provisions of section 115JB of the Act, following its earlier order for AY 2014-15 in ITA No.1885/Bang/2018 dated 23.1.2020 remanded the common issue in AYs 2011-12 to 2013- 14 to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to follow the earlier order of the Tribunal for AY 2014-15 (supra). The relevant para 44 of the order is as follows:- “44. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, we restore this issue to the file of the CIT(A) with similar directions. This ground of the assessee for the AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes. Accordingly the alternate ground regarding adding various items to arrive at the book profit raised by the assessee for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 is also restored to CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with law.” 3. The ld AR submitted that, however, the same issue for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 was earlier dealt by the ITAT’s decision in assessee’s own case in ITA No.99 & 100/PAN/2017 dated 23.1.2020 wherein in para 13 & 14 it was held that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable to assessee bank, and further it was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by order dated 07.02.2023 in ITA Nos. 97 & 98/2020. Further, there was an amendment to section 115JB by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. AY 2013-14 and in the assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14, the issue is remanded to the CIT(Appeals). However, in the impugned AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 which is prior to the amendment, he submitted that this issue was earlier dealt by the Tribunal by order dated 23.01.2020 as stated supra and therefore, there is a mistake apparent on the record in the order of the Tribunal in MP Nos.153 & 154/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 5 remanding the issue for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 to the CIT(Appeals) which needs rectification. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. There is a mistake apparent on the record since in para 44 of the order, the earlier order of the Tribunal for AY 2014-15 is followed for all the three AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 and the common issue is remitted to the file of CIT(Appeals), whereas in view of amendment of section 115JB from AY 2013-14, the same was not applicable for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13. Moreover, this issue for AYs 2011-12 & 2012- 13 is decided by the decision of the Tribunal dated 23.01.2020 and upheld by the Hon’ble High Court as noted above. We therefore modify and substitute para 44 of the order dated 28.04.2023 to read as follows :- “44. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal for AY 2014-15, we restore this issue for AY 2013- 14 to the file of the CIT(A) with similar directions. Accordingly the alternate ground regarding adding various items to arrive at the book profit raised by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is also restored to CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with law. 44.1 As far as the applicability of section 115JB of the Act for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are concerned, we note that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal by order dated 23.01.2020 in ITA Nos.99 & 100/PAN/2017 for AYs MP Nos.153 & 154/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 5 2011-12 & 2012-13 in the case of DCIT v. M/s. Syndicate Bank (assessee’s own case) and upheld by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka by judgment dated 07.02.2023 in ITA Nos.97 & 98/2020. The relevant paras of the order dated 23.01.2020 are as under:- “13. The last common issue relates to the computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. We notice that the co-ordinate bench has held in the assessee’s own case in AY 2009-10 (supra) that the provisions of sec.115JB is not applicable to banking companies during the years under consideration. The co- ordinate bench has followed the decision rendered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in AY 2006-07, which in turn, followed the decision rendered by the Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Krung Thai Bank. 14. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has also followed the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in AY 2007-08, wherein identical view has been expressed. Since the Ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in deciding this issue in favour of the assessee, we have no reason to interfere with his decision.” 44.2 In view of the above, this issue already stands allowed in assessee’s own case (erstwhile Syndicate Bank) for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 by the order of the Tribunal dated 23.01.2020 and upheld by the Hon’ble High Court by judgment dated 07.02.2023 as discussed supra. Therefore this issue for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is allowed.” MP Nos.153 & 154/Bang/2023 Page 5 of 5 5. Except for the above modification, the order dated 28.04.2023 of the Tribunal remains unchanged. 6. In the result, miscellaneous petitions by the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 26 th day of July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 26 th July, 2023. / Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.