The Salem District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Salem V. DCIT, Salem

MA 375/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5308 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !' , # $ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %% / M.P. NO.375/CHNY/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.1168/CHNY/2016) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S THE SALEM DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.65-A, CHERRY ROAD, SALEM 636 001. PAN : AAFFT 4136 K V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, SALEM. ()*& /PETITIONER) ()+*,/ RESPONDENT) )*& . / /PETITIONER BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE )+*, . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT 0 . 1# / DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2018 2!' . 1# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 07.06.2017. 2. SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL AT PARA 5 OF ITS ORDER OBSERVED THAT THE 2 M.P. NO.375/CHNY/17 ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF 19,49,35,398/- AS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF NON-PERFORMING ASSET TO THE EXTENT OF 7,72,84,858/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT EXAMINED THIS FACT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE A CT'). BASED UPON THIS, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR I N THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE WA S A PRIMA FACIE MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD AS THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 36( 1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, H E CANNOT RE- EXAMINE THE SAME. 3. WE HEARD SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE AUDIT WING OF THE DEPARTMENT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF 19,49,25,398/- AS AGAINST THE PROVISION MADE FOR NON-PERFORMING ASSET TO THE EXTE NT OF 7,72,84,858/- AND THERE WAS A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR UNDER ESTIMATE 3 M.P. NO.375/CHNY/17 TO THE EXTENT OF 11.76 CRORES. THIS FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS NOT A PRIMA FACIE ERROR AS CLAIMED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT ONLY A PRIMA FACIE ERROR, WHICH IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD, ALONE COULD BE RECTIFIED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS NO MERIT IN THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSI ON OF HEARING ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. KRI. . )15% 6%'1 /COPY TO: 1. )*& / PETITIONER 2. )+*, /RESPONDENT 3. 0 71 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 71 /CIT 5. %8 )1 /DR 6. 9& : /GF.