ITA-93-2019 (O&M) 1 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 ITA-93-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.1.2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Appellant Versus Jhajjar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Sr.Standing counsel with Mr. Chetan Sood, Jr. Standing counsel for appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act,1961 (for short 'the Act') against order dated 30.5.2018 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B; New Delhi in ITA No. 939/Del/2016 dated 30.5.2018 for assessment year 2012-13, claiming following substantial questions of law :- i. Whether Ld. ITAT was right in law as well as on facts in upholding order of Ld. CIT (A) in deleting addition of Rs. 3,31,60,915/- made by A.O. because as per provisions of section 43D read with explanation (ii) of sub section (viia) of sub section 36 of I.T. Act, 1961 which are applicable to schedule bank and name of assessee bank is not figured in list of schedule bank, assessee is not entitled for benefit of above provisions of Income Tax Act. ANURADHA (ii) Whether Ld. ITAT was right in law as well as on facts 2020.01.27 16:56 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-93-2019 (O&M) 2 in deleting addition on account of provisions of CA's audit fee since assessee claimed provisions of CA's audit fee in year under consideration but actual payment was made in subsequent year. 2. Learned counsel has very fairly stated that substantial question of law No.1 is covered by judgment of this Court passed in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ludhiana Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. reported as 2019 410 ITR 72 (P&H) against appellant and as regards question No.2 tax effect involved is nominal and much less than monetary limit as prescribed in Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. 3. Consequently, petition is dismissed. 4. Since main case has been dismissed, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 23.1.2020 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No ANURADHA 2020.01.27 16:56 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak v. Jhajjar Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd