Bhagini Nivedita Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

MA 42/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4375 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM #'#' '' / MA NO. 42/PN/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 136/PN/2014) %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 BHAGINI NIVEDITA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., 387/388, NARAYAN PETH, RASHTRABHASHA BHAVAN, PUNE 30 PAN : AAAAB0289K ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. DEEPA KHARE REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 18-03-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-05-2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 29-05-2015 PASSED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN ITA NO. 136/PN/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, PUNE DATED 31-10-2013. ONE OF THE GROUNDS 2 MA NO. 42/PN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 (GROUND NO. 1) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL WAS IN RES PECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED STATING THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE AC T, 2013 BY INSERTING EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. T HE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND BY REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AS 343 ITR 270 (SC) ALONE. THE AMENDMENT BROU GHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 TO SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) IS VERY CRUCIAL FOR DEC IDING THIS ISSUE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. 3. SMT. DEEPA KHARE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013. IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATIN G THIS ISSUE HAS CONSIDERED THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IS WELL REAS ONED AND THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT B Y THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 WHEREBY EXPLAN ATION 2 TO 3 MA NO. 42/PN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) WAS INSERTED, WHILE ADJUDICATING GROUND NO. 1 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THUS, THERE IS APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN PARA 4 AT PAGE 3 OF THE ORDER, WHILE RECOR DING CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THERE IS A REFERENCE TO BE AMENDM ENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013. THE RELEVANT EXTRA CT OF PARA 4 IS REPRODUCED HERE-IN-BELOW: THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT INSERTED BY THE FINAN CE ACT, 2013, MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOU BTFUL DEBTS WOULD BE TREATED AS SINGLE ACCOUNT RELATED TO ALL TYPES OF A DVANCES I.E. RURAL OR OTHERWISE. THUS, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONSTRUED THAT D EDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE IN CASE OF PROVISION FOR NON-RURAL ADVANCES ALSO. ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGE MENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG . CO. LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED AS (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM). 6. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE ALL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSIDERED, INCLUDING THE AM ENDMENT TO SECTION 36(1)(VIA) MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2013. THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) WAS DECIDED BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). THERE IS NO A PPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . 7. THE ASSESSEE IS PERHAPS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER IN THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS GOT A LIMITED POWER TO RECTIFY A M ISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD ITSELF. AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT, IF ANY IS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 4 MA NO. 42/PN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 8. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 18 TH MAY, 2016 RK *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-I, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE