M/S VIDISHA BHOPAL KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,BHOPAL vs. ITO, VIDISHA

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: and 860 of 2017

Facts, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80P of the I.T. Act. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is a Regional Bank and as per the Circular 6/2010 of CBDT dated 20.9.2010, Section 80P of the Act was amended w.e.f. 01.4.2007 and 860 of 2017 3 Vidisha Bhopal Kshetriya Gramin Bank introducing sub-section (4) which laid down specifically that deduction u/s 80P was no more available to any Regional Rural Bank from A.Y. 2007-08 onwards. Furthermore, the Circular No.319 dated 11.1.1982 deeming any Regional Rural Bank to be cooperative society was also withdrawn by the CBDT w.e.f. A.Y. 2007-08 onwards. Following the circulars, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80P of the Act was held as inadmissible by the Assessing Officer.

The matter was carried to ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09.

The ld. Authorized Representative has filed a declaration in Form No.8 under the provisions of Section 158A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to avoid the repetitive appeal on the ground that the substantial question of law is already admitted by the Hon'ble High Court in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, Form No.8 may be accepted and the matter may be restored to the AO.

Ld. Senior D.R. did not raise any objection in this regard.

Looking to the above facts, we accept the Form No.8 (copy filed) and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be restored to the file of AO and the AO is directed to take the decision as per and 860 of 2017 4 Vidisha Bhopal Kshetriya Gramin Bank outcome of the appeal in case of assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08, which is pending before the Hon'ble M.P.High Court in MAIT 212/2012.

In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

So far as ground nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, both the parties submitted that facts and issue are identical to the appeal for the assessment year 2012-13 above and the decision taken for the assessment year 2012-13 will be applicable to the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 too. Therefore, following the same, we accept the Form No.8 (copy filed) and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be restored to the file of AO and the AO is directed to take the decision as per outcome of the appeal in case of assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08, which is pending before the Hon'ble M.P.High Court in MAIT 212/2012. Thus, ground nos.1 to 3 are allowed for statistical purposes only.

So far as ground no.4 with regard to disallowance of Rs.32,23,269/- is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that under schedule 16 of the audited accounts pertaining and 860 of 2017 6 Vidisha Bhopal Kshetriya Gramin Bank to operating expenses, “other expenditures” of Rs.32,23,269/- was given. However, during the time of filing of details of “other expenditures”, a blank proforma was submitted at the time of the assessment proceedings. The explanation was that this bank had been taken over by the Central Bank during this FY and the audited accounts were prepared by the successor bank and no details of this expenditure were filled by the successor bank in the proforma. Before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that this expenditure comprised of expenditure related to different items such as, entertainment expenses, news paper expenses, travelling allowance and others of seven branches of the bank for the assessment year 2012-13 pertaining to the period 01.4.2012 to 08.10.2012. After 08.10.2012, the bank was taken over by the Central Bank of India. The Assessing Officer has not disbelieved the audited accounts wherein “other expenses” amounting to Rs.32,23,269/- have been duly reflected. The Assessing Officer did not call for any explanation on this point to explain the alleged discrepancy. Further, learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the total expenditure incurred during the year compares well with the expenditure incurred under this head in previous year where the same have been accepted. The assessee had enclosed full details of all such expenses which remained to be examined in proper perspective. On and 860 of 2017 7 Vidisha Bhopal Kshetriya Gramin Bank the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue Authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on the file. We find that learned Counsel for the assessee has claimed that the Assessing Officer has not disbelieved the audited accounts wherein “other expenses” amounting to Rs.32,23,269/- have been duly reflected and the Assessing Officer did not call for any explanation on this point to explain the alleged discrepancy. Further, learned Counsel for the assessee also contended that the total expenditure incurred during the year compares well with the expenditure incurred under this head in previous year where the same have been accepted. The assessee had enclosed full details of all such expenses which remained to be examined in proper perspective.

Finally, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.