D.C.I.T., Circle-3, Darjeeling v. Darjeeling District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd
[Citation -2016-LL-0916-50]

Citation 2016-LL-0916-50
Appellant Name D.C.I.T., Circle-3, Darjeeling
Respondent Name Darjeeling District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court ITAT-Kolkata
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 16/09/2016
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags reasonable opportunity • additional evidence • co-operative bank
Bot Summary: The grounds raised by the revenue as per its appeal are as under:- 1. All these appeals filed by Revenue involve same grounds of appeal in all the assessment years. CIT(A) has filed revised grounds of appeal dated 4th December, 2013 which was adjudicated by ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee filed an adjournment application through the accountant of the assessee which was rejected by us on the ground that the issued in the appeals need to be reconsidered by the AO. ITA Nos.87 to 90 Kol 2014 A.Y. 2007-08 to 2010-11 DCIT, Circle-3, Siliguri vs Darjeeling Dist. CIT(A) has passed an order after considering the submissions of the assessee along with the revised grounds of appeal dated 4th December, 2013. At the outset we find that the facts of the case in these appeals are same as narrated above in ITA NO.87 Kol 2014 and that appeal has been allowed by us for statistical purposes. Central Coop.Bank Ltd. Page 4 terms of the above hence these appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member ITA Nos.87 to 90 Kol 2014 Assessment Years:2007-08 to 2010-11 D.C.I.T., Circle-3, Darjeeling District Aayakara Bhavan, Wing Central Co-operative V s. B Paribahan Nagar, Bank Ltd., Rish Road, Matigara, Siliguri, Dist. Kalimpong, Darjeeling- Darjeeling-734010. 734301. PAN:AAALD0261C Appellant .. Respondent By Department Shri S.S.Alam, JCIT, Sr.DR By Respondent Shri Nishikanta Saha, Accountant Date of Hearing 05-09-2016 Date of Pronouncement 16-09-2016 ORDER PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- These appeals by revenue are against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri dated 05.12.2013. Assessments were framed by ACIT, Circle- 3, Siliguri u s 147 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) vide his order dated 19.03.2013 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. grounds raised by revenue as per its appeal are as under:- 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A), Jalpaiguri, was justified disallowances made by Assessing Officer without ITA Nos.87 to 90 Kol 2014 A.Y. 2007-08 to 2010-11 DCIT, Circle-3, Siliguri vs Darjeeling Dist. Central Coop.Bank Ltd. Page 2 appreciating fact that orders u s 147 143(3) had been passed after due verification of facts, deliberation and due consideration of facts. 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A), Jalpaiguri, was justified in law, in granting deduction u s 36(1)(viia)(a) to assessee disregarding fact that such deduction had not been claimed in income-tax returns filed by assessee and that I.T. Act, provides for deductions to be allowed 0 basis of claims made in income-tax return. 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A), Jalpaiguri, was justified in law, in granting deduction u s 36(1)(viia)(a) to assessee accepting it's status as scheduled bank, disregarding fact that throughout assessment proceedings assessee had insisted on its status as primary agricultural society and had admitted it's status as bank only during appellate proceedings. Shri S.S.Alam, JCIT, Sr.DR, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue and Shri Nishikanta Saha, Accountant appeared on behalf of assessee. All these appeals filed by Revenue involve same grounds of appeal in all assessment years. Therefore we deem it fit to treat one of cases as lead case i.e. I.T.A.No. 87 Kol 2014 (A.Y.2007-08). Accordingly we proceed to adjudicate this case. ITA No.87 Kol 2014 (A.Y.2007-08): 2. At outset, ld. Departmental Representative brought to our notice that assessee before ld. CIT(A) has filed revised grounds of appeal dated 4th December, 2013 which was adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) without taking any remand report from AO. ld. DR also submitted that assessee in instant case has made detail submission along with revised grounds of appeal to ld. CIT(A) on 4th December, 2013 and ld. CIT(A) has passed order dated 5th December, 2013. Therefore it appears from above facts that ld. CIT(A) has not considered written submission of assessee and assessment records properly. In view of above ld. DR prayed before Bench to restore file to AO for fresh adjudication. 3. On other hand, ld. Authorised Representative for assessee filed adjournment application through accountant of assessee which was rejected by us on ground that issued in appeals need to be reconsidered by AO. ITA Nos.87 to 90 Kol 2014 A.Y. 2007-08 to 2010-11 DCIT, Circle-3, Siliguri vs Darjeeling Dist. Central Coop.Bank Ltd. Page 3 4. We have heard ld. DR and perused materials available on record. From perusal of facts we find that ld. CIT(A) has passed order after considering submissions of assessee along with revised grounds of appeal dated 4th December, 2013. But no remand report was called for from AO. It is also evident from order of ld. CIT(A) which was passed on 5th December, 2013 and submission along with revised grounds of appeal was made by assessee on dated 4th December, 2013. From above discussion we hold that ld. CIT(A)has passed impugned order without taking remand report. This action of ld. CIT(A) is in violation of provision of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules which read as under :- Production of additional evidence before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals0 and Commission (Appeals) 46A (1) (2) . (3) Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) [ or as case may be, Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless Assessing Officer has been allowed reasonable opportunity (a) to examine evidence or document or to cross-examine witness produced by appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of additional evidence produced by appellant. 5. In view of above provision of Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962 we hold that ld. CIT(A) has passed order against provision of law. Therefore in interest of justice and fair play we are inclined to restore issue to file of AO for fresh adjudication as per law. Hence this ground of appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Now coming to other appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos.88 to 90 Kol 2014 for A.Yrs.2008-09 to 2010-11. 6. At outset we find that facts of case in these appeals are same as narrated above in ITA NO.87 Kol 2014 and that appeal has been allowed by us for statistical purposes. Now considering above we restore these appeals to AO in ITA Nos.87 to 90 Kol 2014 A.Y. 2007-08 to 2010-11 DCIT, Circle-3, Siliguri vs Darjeeling Dist. Central Coop.Bank Ltd. Page 4 terms of above hence these appeals of revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In result, revenue s appeals stand allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 16 09 2016 Sd - Sd - (S.S.Viswanethra Ravi) (Waseem Ahmed) Judicial Member Accountant Member *RG.PS - 16 09 2016 Kolkata Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Appellant-Darjeeling District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rishi Road, Kalimpong, Darjeeling-734301. 2. Respondent-DCIT, Circle-3, Aayakar Bhawan, Wing B Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Siliguri, Dist. Darjeeling-734010. 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. By order D.C.I.T., Circle-3, Darjeeling v. Darjeeling District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd
Report Error