Kendrapada Urban Co Operative Bank Ltd Kendrapada v. Acit Circle 1 2 Cuttack

1 Ita No 376 Ctk 2016 Assessment Year 2011 2012 In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Cuttack Bench Cuttack Before S Shri N S Saini Accountant Member And Pavan Kumar Gadale Judicial Member Ita No 376 Ctk 2016 Assessment Year 201 1 2012 Kendrapara Urban Co Operative Bank Ltd College Square Tinimuhani Kendrapara Vs Acit Circle 1 2 Cuttack Pan Gir No Aaatk 8347 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S K Bandyopadhyay Dr Date Of Hearing 1 3 1 2 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 14 1 2 2017 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit A Cuttack Dated 27 3 2015 For The Assessment Year 2011 12 2 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal 1 That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Cuttack Hereinafter Referred As The Learned Cit A Has Committed Serious Error In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Which Is Per Se Illegal Unjust Without Jurisdiction Arbitrary And Contrary To The Provisions Of The Act And Has Been Passed On Gross Violation To The Principles Of Natural Just Ice 2 That The Learned Cit A Has Committed Serious Error In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Which Has Been Passed On The Basis Of Illegal Notice U S 143 2 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Hereinafter Referred As The Act 2 Ita No 376 Ctk 2016 Assessment Year 2011 2012 3 That The Learned Cit A Has Committed Serious Error In Not Deleting The Addition Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Of Rs 1 16 05 262 U S 36 1 Viia A Of The Act 4 That The Learned Cit A Has Committed Serious Error In Disallowing Of Amount Of Rs 2 37 600 U S 40 A Ia Of The Act 3 None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Matter Was Called For He A Ring However An Adjournment Petition Dated 11 12 2017 Is Filed By Ld A R Of The Assessee Stating That On The Date Of Hearing He Is Preoccupied Due To Professional Engagement And Therefore Is Unable To Attend The Hearing And Hence Requested For Adjourning The Hearing To Some Other Date The Bench Did Not Find The Reason For Seeking Adjournment As A Plausible One Hence The Adjournment Petit Ion Was Rejected And The Appeal Was Disposed Of After Hearing Ld D R And On The Basis Of Material Available On Record 3 Ground Nos 1 2 Of Appeal Are General In Nat Ure And Hence Requires No Separate Adjudication 4 As Regards To Ground No 3 Of Appeal The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Banking It Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Returned Income Of Rs 36 44 350 The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Claimed Provision For Bad And Doubtful Assets Npa And Provision For Recovering Totalling To Rs 1 28 41 716 The Assessing Officer Observed That As Per The Provision Of Section 36 1 Viia A Of The Act Provision For Bad And Doubtful Deb Ts Is Allowed In Respect Of A 3 Ita No 376 Ctk 2016 Assessment Year 2011 2012 Scheduled Bank Or A Non Scheduled Bank Or A Co Operative Bank 7 Of The Total Income Computed Before Making Any Deduction Under This Clause And Chapter Via He Also Observed That In The Assessment Year 2009 2010 The Cit A Has Also Confirmed The Addition Made Under The Head Provision For Bad And Doubtful Debts In View Of Above The Assessing Officer Observed That 7 5 Of The Total Income Computed Before Making Any Deduction Under Section Provision And Under Chapter Via Of The Act As Per The Provisions Of Section 36 1 Viia A Of The Act Is Allowable To The Assessee And Accordingly Disallowed Rs 1 16 05 262 And Added The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee 5 On Appeal The Cit A Confirmed The Action Of The Assessing Officer 6 After Hearing Ld D R And Perusing The Orders Of Lower Authorities We Find That The Assessing Officer Has Allowed 7 5 Of The Total Income Computed Before Making Any Deduction Under Such Provision And Under Chapter Via Of The Act Which Is Allowable To A Scheduled Bank Or A Non Scheduled Bank Or A Co Operative Bank It Is Also Noted By The Cit A The View Of The Assessing Officer Is In Conformity With The Order Of The Cit A For The Assessment Year 2009 2010 Hence We Find No S Pecific Mistake In The Order Of The Cit A Which Is Hereby Confirmed And Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed 7 In Ground No 4 Of Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged The Disallowance Of Rs 2 37 600 U S 40 A Ia Of The Act 4 Ita No 376 Ctk 2016 Assessment Year 2011 2012 8 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Has Claimed Expenses Of Rs 2 37 600 Towards Audit Fee On Which Required Tax Was Not Deducted U S 194 Of The Act Therefore The Assessing Officer Disallowed Rs 2 37 600 And Added T He Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee As Per Section 40 A Ia Of The Act 9 On Appeal The Cit A Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer 10 Before Us Ld D R Supported The Orders Of Lower Authorities 11 After Hearing Ld D R And Perusing The Materials Available On Record We Find That The Assessee Has Not Deducted Any Tax Against The Payment Of Rs 2 37 600 Towards Audit Fees As Per Section 40 A Ia Of The Act Before Us Also No Evidence Was Filed To Substantiate Tha T The Tax Has Been Deducted From The Said Payment Therefore We Find No Infirmity In The Order Of The Cit A Which Is Hereby Confirmed And Ground Of Appeal Is Rejected 12 In The Result Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed Order Pronoun Ced On 14 1 2 2017 Sd Sd N S Saini Pavan Kumar Gadale A Ccountant Member Judicialmember Cuttack Dated 14 1 2 2017 B K Parida Sps 5 Ita No 376 Ctk 2016 Assessment Year 2011 2012 Copy Of The Order Forwarded To By Order Sr Private Secretary Itat Cuttack 1 The Appellant Kendrapara Urban Co Operative Bank Ltd College Square Tinimuhani Kendrapara 2 The Respondent Acit Circle 1 2 Cuttack 3 The Cit A Cuttack 4 Pr Cit Cuttack 5 Dr Itat Cuttack 6 Guard File True Copy