Indian Bank, CHENNAI V. JCIT, CHENNAI

MA 167/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5364 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S SWAMINATHAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , ! ' #! ' $ . %& , ' () BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER *!*! / M.P. NO.167/MDS/2016 (IN I.T.A. NO.1992/MDS/2015) ' + !,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S INDIAN BANK, CORPORATE OFFICE, ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, 254-260, AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014. PAN : AAACI 1607 G V. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (.// APPELLANT) (12.// RESPONDENT) 1.+ 3 4 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI S. SWAMINATHAN, CA 12./ 3 4 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT ' ! 3 5 / DATE OF HEARING : 10.03.2017 67, 3 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.03.2017 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. N O.1992/MDS/2015 DATED 11.03.2016. 2 M.P. NO.167/MDS/16 2. THE LD. AR APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AS GROUND NO.4 OF REVENUES APPEAL IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS W HETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF AVERAGE RURAL ADVANCES UN DER RULE 6ABA, THE BALANCES OF EVERY MONTH OR THE INCREMENTA L BALANCES FOR EACH MONTH IS TO BE CONSIDERED. IN THIS CONNECTIO N ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LIMITED IN I.T.A. NOS.55 1, 552 & 553/MDS/2009 DATED 18.12.2009 AND ALSO THE DECISION IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NOS.2124, 2125 AND 21 26/MDS/2014 DATED 30.11.2015. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN PARA GRAPH 30 OF ITS ORDER, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL REL YING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LIMITED IN I.T.A. NO.1205/MDS/2015 DATED 29.01.2016, HELD THAT THE DE DUCTION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF RURAL DEBTS AND NOT ON URBAN DEBTS AND THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE . 3. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE R AISED BY THE REVENUE IS THE METHODOLOGY OF COMPUTATION OF AVERAG E RURAL ADVANCES AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RU LE 6ABA AND NOT WHETHER THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF RURAL DEBT OR URBAN DEBT. THUS, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ONLY IN 3 M.P. NO.167/MDS/16 RESPECT OF THE COMPUTATION OF AVERAGE RURAL ADVANCE S AND ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT FOR COMPUTATION OF AVERAGE RURAL ADVANCES AS REQUIRED BY RULE 6ABA, ONLY THE ADVANCES OUTSTANDING IN EACH MO NTH IS TO BE CONSIDERED AND NOT INCREMENTAL ADVANCES. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. A.R., IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD TO RELY ON A DECISION WHICH IS NOT ON THE SUBJECT AND THAT TOO, A DECISIO N DELIVERED MUCH LATER TO THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE ISSUE , APPLIED THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I .T.A. NO.1205/MDS/2015 DATED 29.01.2016 AND ALLOWED THE G ROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. BEING SO, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ALLOWING THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER SO AS TO RECTIFY IT. HOWEVER, FOLLOWING SENTENCE APPEARING ON PAGE 26, L AST LINE OF PARAGRAPH 29 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GROUND RA ISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4 M.P. NO.167/MDS/16 THIS IS THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND THIS SENTENCE I S DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15 TH MARCH, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' #! ' $ . %& ) ( ) (DUVVURU R.L. REDDY) (CHANDRA POOJARI) ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, K /DATED, THE 15 TH MARCH, 2017. KRI. L 3 1'5M* N*,5 /COPY TO: 1. 1.+ / PETITIONER 2. 12./ /RESPONDENT 3. ' O5 () /CIT(A) 4. ' O5 /CIT 5. *!PQ 1'5' /DR 6. Q&+ R /GF.