STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI v. DCIT CEN CIR 2(2),

ITA 4288/MUM/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 428819914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACS8577K
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4288/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT CEN CIR 2(2),
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 15-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 15-03-2012
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 26-05-2010
Judgment Text
STATE BANK OF INDIA ITA NO. 4288/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI H BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R S SYAL AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JM ITA NO. 4288/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) STATE BANK OF INDIA FINANCIAL REPORTING COMPLIANCE & TAXATION DEPT CORPORATE CENTRE MADAM CAMA ROAD MUMBAI 400 021 VS THE DY COMMR OF INCOME TAX CIR 2(2) MUMBAI (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACS8577K ASSESSEE BY SHRI GIRISH DAVE REVENUE BY SH GOLI SRINIWAS RAO DT.OF HEARING 15 TH MARCH 2012 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 TH MARCH 2012 ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2010 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE I T ACT BY THE CIT FOR THE AY 2005-06. 2 THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 153A OF THE I T ACT ON 31.3.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THE CIT HAD CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE FOLL OWING REASONS: 1)WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME THE ASSESSING O FFICER REJECTED CLAIM OF BANK TO REDUCE AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 985.34 CRORES WHICH WAS CREDITED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF APPRECIATION OF SECURITIE S HELD AS AFS (AVAILABLE FOR SALE) AND HFT (HELD FOR TRADING) CATEGORIES FROM TO TAL INCOME. HOWEVER WHILE ARRIVING AT THE TOTAL INCOME THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS.1 244.90 CRORES WHICH WAS TAXED DURING A.Y. 2001 -02 TO 2004-05 OVER STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005- -- -06) 06) 06) 06) 2 LOOKING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS NOT ACC EPTED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2) IN PARA. 2 OF NOTES TO THE STATEMENT OF INCOME T HE BANK HAS MENTIONED THAT THE BANK AS PER RESERVE BANK OF INDIA GUIDELINE S FOR NON-RECOGNITION OF INTEREST ON ADVANCES CLASSIFIED AS NON- PERFORMING A SSETS (NPA) DID NOT RECOGNIZE SUCH INTEREST ON BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONDUCT ANY ENQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE BANK HAS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 6EA OF THE INCOME TA X RULES FOR NOT RECOGNIZING THE INTEREST ON NPA. 3) WHILE WORKING OUT DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) INCL UDING THE PRUDENTIAL PROVISION ON STANDARD ASSETS OF RS. 115 CRORE WAS ALS O INCLUDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AS THE P ROVISION IS NOT FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT BUT FOR THE STANDARD ASSETS WHICH CAN NOT BE INCLUDED FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VIIA)OF THE INCOME TA X ACT 1961. 2.1 ACCORDINGLY THE CIT(A) PROPOSED TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE I T ACT DATED 11.2 .2009 AND THEREAFTER AGAIN ON 25.2.2010. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY TO THE SHOW CA USE NOTICE AND HAS CONTESTED AGAINST THE PROPOSED ACTION OF THE CIT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE CIT DID NOT CONVINCE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 OF THE I T ACT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT AS PER LAW. 3. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2 MUMBAI (CIT) DATED 25 MARCH 2010 FOR THE AFORESAID A SSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING AMONG OTHER GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVI SIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THEIR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 263 AND HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY INTO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE AND THERE IS AN APPARENT ERROR OF REASONING OF LAW IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005- -- -06) 06) 06) 06) 3 4. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT WHILE ARRIV ING AT THE TOTAL INCOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION O F RS. 1 244.90 CRORE WHICH WAS TAXED DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO 2004-05 OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 5. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FAILED TO CONDUCT ANY ENQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE BANK HAS FULFI LLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 6EA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES FOR NOT RECOGNIZING THE INTEREST ON NON-PERFORMING ASSETS. 6. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DID NOT EXAMINE THE ISSUES REGARDING THE PROVISION ON STANDA RD ASSETS OF RS. 115 CRORE UNDER SECTION 36(1 )(VIIA) IN DETAIL. HE FURTH ER ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE PROVISION ON STANDARD ASSETS IS NOT FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT AND WHICH CANNOT BE INCLUDED FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LEARNED CIT E RRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND ON E OF THE VIEWS HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE POWE R OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 CANNOT BE EXERCISED. IN THE INSTAN T CASE THE APPELLANTS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PREC EDENTS AND ACCORDINGLY THE VIEW TAKEN IS DEFINITELY A PLAUSIBLE VIEW. 4. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND ASPECTS OF THE ISSUES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 3.1.2008 AND 27.3.2008. HE HAS REFERR ED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 43D AND SUBMITTED THAT ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAS THE LIBERTY TO IDENTIFY THE NON PERFORMING ASSETS (NPAS) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREDITING THE DUE INTERES T IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SA ME. THUS THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT O F CREDITING THE DUE INTEREST ON NPA IS AS PER THE GUIDELINES OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AS WELL AS RULE 6EA THEN ACCEPTING THE SAME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NO T CONSTITUTE ANY ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4.1 HE HAS REFERRED THE REPLY DATED 2.3.2009 TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOW ING THE PRACTICE OF RECOGNISING INCOME ON BAD OR DOUBTFUL DEBTS IN ACCORDANCE WIT H SEC. 43D READ WITH THE RBI STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005- -- -06) 06) 06) 06) 4 GUIDELINES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE DISTURBED EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE CIT. HE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 1991 WHEREBY THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED BY INSERTING A NEW SEC. 43D SO AS TO PROVIDE INTEREST ON STICKY LOANS SHALL BE CHARGED TO TAX ON LY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INTEREST IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR IS CREDITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. IT IS PROVIDED IN THE FINANCE ACT THAT THE CATEGORY OF BA D AND DOUBTFUL DEBT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE INTEREST WILL QUALIFY FOR THIS EXEMPTI ON WILL BE PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT KEEPING IN VIEW THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI IN RELATION TO SUCH DEBTS. 4.2 THE LD AR REFERRED RULE 6EA FOR IDENTIFYING THE CATEGORIES OF STICKY ADVANCES ON WHICH THE EXEMPTION U/S 43D IS AVAILABLE. IN SUP PORT OF HIS CONTENTION THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KARNAVATI CO-OP BANK LTD VD DCIT REPORTED IN 17 TAXMAN 239(AHD) AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THERE IS NO DEFECT IN THE METHOD OF RECOGNISING THE INTEREST INCOME ON STICKY ADVANCES THEN ACCEPT ING THE SAME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT OPEN TO THE CIT FOR INVOKING THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC. 263. THE INTEREST IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX ONLY IN THE YEAR WHEN IT IS ACTUA LLY RECEIVED OR CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THEREFORE UNLESS AN D UNTIL THE INTEREST IS EITHER ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR THE ASSESSEE ITSELF CREDITS IN THE P&L ACCOUNT THE SAID CANNOT BE ASSESSED TO TAX. THE LD AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT DESPITE ALL THE FACTS AND PROVISIONS EXPLAINED THE CIT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DEF INITE FINDING WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER; THUS THERE IS GROSS NON APPLICATIO N OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE CIT. 4.3 HE HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT HAS REL IED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TARA DEVI AG GARWAL (SMT.) V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REPORTED IN 88 ITR 323. BUT IN THE S AID CASE THE HONBLE SUPREME STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005- -- -06) 06) 06) 06) 5 COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE CIT MADE ENQUIRY TO FIN D OUT THE ACTUAL FACTS AND MALAFIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE CIT NOR ANY FINDING HAS BEE N GIVEN. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2012 OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD IN ITA 179/2011 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION BY CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY IF NECE SSARY BEFORE THE ORDER U/S 263 IS PASSED. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THUS PLEADED THA T THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4.4 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUE AS RAISED BY THE CIT IN THE REVISION ORDER PASSED U/S 263. THE CIT HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE REPLY AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE IT C ANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CIT HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND. THE LD DR HAS ADVANCED THE A RGUMENT THAT EVEN AS PER SEC. 43D THE INTEREST IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX ONLY WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE; BUT THE CORRECTNESS OF CLASSIFICATION OF NPA ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND PARTICULARLY AS PER RULE 6EA. WHEN THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS FAILED TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRY OR EXAMINATION TO FIND OUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. 5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AS WELL A S THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND NO WHISPER ABOUT THE ISSUES WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATER OF S THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 63 . EVEN FROM THE REPLY DT 31.1.2008 AND 27.3.2008 IT CANNOT BE REMOTELY INFE RRED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005- -- -06) 06) 06) 06) 6 RAISED ANY ENQUIRY ON THIS ISSUE OR THE ASSESSEE HA S FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION THERETO. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ENQUIRY. THEREFORE IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASS ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6 IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW IF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND AS NO ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED THEN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE CIT HAS RAISED THREE SPECIFIC ISSUES FOR INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 AND ONE OF THE ISSU ES IS REGARDING OVERLOOKING MATERIAL FACT SO FAR AS THE ISSUE NO.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS CONCERNED. HENCE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED A SIGNIFICA NT FACT HAVING DIRECT BEARING ON THE ISSUE THEN IT RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND GIVES POWERS TO THE CIT TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263. 6.1 AS REGARDS THE SECOND ISSUE IS CONCERNED THOUG H AS PER THE CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD AS WELL AS RULE 6EA OF THE I T RULES THE ASS ESSEE HAS TO CLASSIFY THE STICKY ADVANCES AS PER THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED UNDER RUL E 6EA; HOWEVER THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD HAS TO BE JUDGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SAME. IT REQUIRES A DETAILE D ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS ABOUT THE STATE OF ASSETS CLASSIFIED BY THE A SSESSEE AS NPA. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE SA ME IS AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULES THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO TAKE INTO CO NSIDERATION THE VARIOUS ASPECTS INCLUDING ANY RECEIPT OR RECOVERY DURING THE YEAR I N RESPECT OF THE ASSETS/ADVANCES AND HOW THE ASSESSEE GIVEN THE TREATMENT TO SUCH RE CEIPTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE A PLEA THAT IT IS AT THE SOLE LIBERTY OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005- -- -06) 06) 06) 06) 7 ASSESSEE TO DECIDE ABOUT THE NPA AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAME. 7 AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CONCERNED THE SAME IS WITH REGARD TO THE ALLOWABILITY AND APP LICABILITY OF SEC. 43D ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE AND THEREFORE IN OUR HUMBLE VIEW WOUL D NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN HAND. 8 THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DG HO USING PROJECTS LTD (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THAT; A DISTINCTION MUST BE DRAWN IN THE CASES WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY; AS LACK OF ENQUIRY BY ITSEL F RENDERS THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVE NUE AND CASES WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTS ENQUIRY BUT FINDING RECO RDED IS ERRONEOUS AND WHICH IS ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. IN LATTER CASES THE CIT HAS TO EXAMINE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON M ERITS OR THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERITS AND THEN HOL D AND FORM AN OPINION ON MERITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THE S ECOND SET OF CASES CIT CANNOT DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT FURT HER ENQUIRY TO VERIFY AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED IS ERRONEOUS OR NOT. 9 THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT WHERE THERE IS COMPLETE LA CK OF ENQUIRY AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEMANDS AN EXTENSIVE ENQUIRY AT THE L EVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN THE CIT IS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO DECIDED THE ISSUE DE- NOVO. 10 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE; ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/ ITA NO. 4288/MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005 (ASST YEAR 2005- -- -06) 06) 06) 06) 8 11 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF MAR 2012 SD/ SD/ ( R S SYAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 30 TH MAR 2012 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR ITAT MUMBAI