M/s. Sultanpur Lodhi Primary Coop. Agri. Bank Ltd., V. The Income tax Oficer, Kapurthala

MA 54/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7951 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY AGGARWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA.NO.54(ASR)/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.494(ASR)/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN; M/S. THE SULTANPUR LODHI PRIMARY VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CO-OP. AGRI. BANK LTD. KAPURTHALA-II, SULTANPUR LODHI, KAPURTHALA. KAPURTHALA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. VIJAY AGGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING :27/04/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30/04/2012 ORDER PER BENCH; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION FOR RECTIFYING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2010, PASSED IN ITA NO.494(ASR)/2009, ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D OABA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. REPORTED IN 230 ITR 774 (P&H), HAS SIM PLY BEEN MENTIONED IN 2 THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2010 BUT NO DISCUSSION HAS BE EN MADE BY THE BENCH. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN THE SAID CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT DIVIDEND INCOME IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S 80P OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ORDER DATED 30.03.2010, SPECIFICALLY PARA 5 (PAGE 5 ) AND PARA 7 (PAGE 6) AND ARGUED THAT THE ORDER DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2010 MAY BE RECTIFIED. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR STATED THAT THIS BEN CH HAS APPRECIATED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE IN THE MAIN ORDER AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF TH E DECISION OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, DATED 30 TH OCT., 2008, IN THE CASE OF THE KAPURTHALA PRIMARY CO-OP. AGRL. DEV. BANK LTD. KAPURTHALA VS. ITO KAPURTHALA-II, IN ITA NO.152(ASR)/2008 FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 AND DISMI SSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF THE KAPURTHALA PRIMARY CO-OP. AGRL. DEV. BANK LTD. KAPU RTHALA VS. ITO KAPURTHALA-II, HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AGA INST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS A S WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2010 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR RECTIFICATION AS WELL AS THE ORDER RELIED UPON BY THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE KAPURTHALA PR IMARY CO-OP. AGRL. DEV. BANK LTD. KAPURTHALA VS. ITO KAPURTHALA-II,(SUPRA), WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED AT PAGES 3 TO 9 OF THE SMALL PAPER BOOK. A FTER GOING THROUGH THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THIS BENCH, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS BENCH HAS DISMISSE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN TH E PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY THIS BENCH AS WELL AS OTHER BENCHES, WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2008 PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE KAPURTHALA PRIMARY CO-OP. AGRL. DEV. BANK LTD. KAPURTHALA VS. ITO KAPURTHALA-II(SUP RA). THIS BENCH HAS ALSO WRITTEN IN PARA NO.7 PAGE 6 OF THE ORDER THAT BENCH HAS ALSO PERUSED THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES. NO OTHE R ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR POINTING OU T ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2010. HE ONLY WANTS TO REVIEW THE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF HIS ARGUM ENT, WHICH IS NOT 4 PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW AND THIS BENCH HAS ALSO NO POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2010 PASSED BY THIS BENCH. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30TH APRIL, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. THE SULTANUR LODHI PRIMARY CO-OP. AGRI. BANK LTD. SULTANPUR LODHI. 2. THE ITO KAPURTHALA-II, KAPURTHALA. 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.