THE MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.267/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/s The Mayurbhanj Central Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Baripada Cooperative Bank Limited, At/Po: Baripada, Mayurbhanj स्थायी लेखा सं./PANNo. : AAAAM 7185 J (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty,CA िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 07/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Pr. CIT, Cuttack dated 30.03.2018 for the assessment year 2013-2014. 2. As per the office note/order sheet entry, the appeal of the assessee is barred by 18 days. In this regard, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit stating therein the sufficient reasons for delay in filing the present appeal. On the other hand, ld. DR did not object to condone the delay. We have also gone through the said application along with the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the sufficient reasons for delay. Considering the application along with the affidavit of the assessee for

2 ITA No.267/CTK/2018 condonation of delay, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and the

appeal is heard finally.

28.09.2013 for the A.Y.2013-2014 declaring total income at

Rs.10,57,620/-. Thereafter the AO completed the assessment

u/s.143(3) of the Act determining total income of the assessee at

Rs.8,47,18,770/- and made various additions. Subsequently, the Pr. CIT

invoking his power u/s.263 of the Act held that the assessment order

passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

as the AO has not conducted necessary verification in this matter.

Therefore, the Pr. CIT modified the assessment order and directed the

AO to add Rs.18,52,867/- to the total income of the assessee as has

already been determined in the proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act.

appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

selected the case for scrutiny on the basis of AIR information and

issued several statutory notices against the assessee, to which the

assessee has replied and filed details and evidences and on the basis of

the same the AO has framed assessment. It was also the contention of

ld. AR that once the AO has conducted the enquiry and completed the

assessment and the enquiry conducted was inadequate as per the

3 ITA No.267/CTK/2018 Pr.CIT, there is no case for revision u/s.263 of the Act for inadequate

enquiry. Therefore, ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the Pr.

CIT deserves to be quashed. In this regard, ld. AR relied on the

judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd. 166

Taxman 188(SC) and Quality Steel Supplies Complex, 84 Taxman.com

234(SC).

submitted that the Pr. CIT has rightly exercised his revisonary powers.

Ld.DR further submitted that the case laws relied on by the ld. AR is not

applicable in the present facts of the case.

the entire material available on record, we find that the Pr. CIT

modified the assessment order invoking provisions of Section 263 of

the Act observing that the AO has not made any proper enquiry which

should have been done by the AO of the amount received by the

assessee under the head ‘Commission Exchange & Brokerage’. On

perusal of the assessment order, we observed that the AO nowhere has

disputed or discussed the issue nor any enquiry has been made in this

regard. The ld. AR of the assessee was also unable to substantiate that

this issue was examined by the AO and has reached at any conclusion.

Further the AO first is an investor thereafter he is an adjudicator.

Therefore, the Pr. CIT has rightly invoked the revisionary provisions

4 ITA No.267/CTK/2018 provided u/s.263 of the Act modifying the assessment order holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is without any merit, consequently, dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/12/ 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (C.M.GARG) (L.P.SAHU) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनांक Dated 23/12/2019 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीलाथी / The Appellant- 1. M/s The Mayurbhanj Central Cooperative Bank Limited, At/Po: Baripada, Mayurbhanj प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2. ITO, Ward-1, Baripada आयकि आयुक्त(अऩील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकि आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकि अऩीलीय अधधकिण, कटक / DR, ITAT, 5. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, Cuttack गार्ा पाईल / Guard file. 6. सत्यावऩत प्रनत //True Copy// (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक / ITAT, Cuttack