Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Mangalore V. M/s corporation Bank, Mangalore

MA 4/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4417 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

MP.4/BANG/2016 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. PETITION NO.4/BANG/2016 (IN I.T.A NO.745/BANG/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), MANGALURU .. APPLICANT V. M/S. CORPORATION BANK, MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU .. RESPONDENT PAN : AAACC7245E ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. S. ANANTHAN, CA REVENUE BY : DR. P. K. SRIHARI, ADDL. CIT HEARD ON : 08.07.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 08.07.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY REVENUE IT S GRIEVANCE IS THAT DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMENT WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSES SEE WITHOUT CONSIDERING MP.4/BANG/2016 PAGE - 2 THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V. ING VYSYA BANK LTD [ITA 2886/2005, DT.06.06.2012]. 02. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT, PERTINENT PARTS OF WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, WOULD SHOW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD MISTAKEN LY GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE LD. DR, THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL HAD TO BE RECALLED. 03. PER CONTRA, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT VERY SAME ISS UE WAS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH AN MP NUMBERED AS MP 15 & 16/BAN G/2013, FOR THE VERY SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS PER THE LD. AR VIDE DECISION DT.04.10.2013, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE MP F ILED BY THE REVENUE WHERE ALSO THE SAME CASE OF ING VYSYA (SUPRA) WAS R ELIED ON BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR SINCE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN PUT TO UNNECESSARY HARASSMENT THROUGH THIS SECOND MP, COST SHOULD BE AWARDED ON THE REVENUE. 04. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. CONTENTIO N OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THIS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE DECISION OF ING VYSYA BANK LTD (SUPRA) WHEN HOLDING THAT DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMEN T PORTFOLIO CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT REVENUE HAD EA RLIER FILED AN MP ON THE MP.4/BANG/2016 PAGE - 3 VERY SAME ISSUE WHICH CAME TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRI BUNAL ON 04.07.2013. PERTINENT PARTS OF THE SAID MP IS REPRODUCED HEREUN DER : MP.4/BANG/2016 PAGE - 4 MP.4/BANG/2016 PAGE - 5 MP.4/BANG/2016 PAGE - 6 MP.4/BANG/2016 PAGE - 7 THUS THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS MISCEL LANEOUS PETITION HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH, IN AN EARLIER MP FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE VERY SAME CASE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE. EFFECTIVELY THIS IS AN MP ON AN MP. ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PUT TO HARDSHIP AND DIFFICULTIES DUE TO THE REPETITIVE FILING OF MPS ON AN ISSUE WHICH ALREADY STOOD DECID ED. WE ARE OF THE MP.4/BANG/2016 PAGE - 8 OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF COST ON THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PLEADING OF THE LD. DR, WE RESTRAIN OURSELVES FROM LEVYING COST, WITH A STRICT WARNING TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT PETITIONS SHALL NOT BE FILED WITHOUT CAREFULLY STUDYING THE CASE. 06. WITH THESE WORDS OF CAUTION WE DISMISS THE MP F ILED BY THE REVENUE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR