THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. BHOPAL CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., BHOPAL

per P&L account at the time of filing the return for A.Y.

2009-10.

7.2 For the F.Y. 2007-08 ‘provision for depreciation on

investment’ had been made of Rs. 11,20,981/- which

had been added back by the appellant in its

ACIT vs. Bhopal Coop. ITA 45/2017

computation of income to the profit as per P&L account

at the time of filing the return for A.Y. 2008-09. For F.Y.

2006-07 this provision for depreciation on investment

had been made of Rs.3,15,748/- which had been

added back by the appellant in its computation of

income to the profit as per P&L account at the time of

filing the return for A.Y. 2007-08. The provision made

by the appellant under this head of ‘provision for

depreciation on investment’ for the F.Y. 2006-07, 2007-

08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 adds up to Rs.62,71,821/-

which has been added back by the appellant in his

computation of income while filing the returns for the

respective assessment years.

seen that the appellant has made a total provision

under the head ‘depreciation diminution of investment 9

ACIT vs. Bhopal Coop. ITA 45/2017

written back’ of Rs.62,71,821/- from the A.Y. 2007-08

to 2010-11. In all these years, it has added back this

provision at the time of filing of return as can be seen

from the computation of income for these years. During

this assessment year also i.e. A.Y. 2010-11, the

appellant has a made a provision of Rs.1,000,000/-

which has been suo moto added back by the appellant

in its computation of income. Looking to the totality of

the facts and circumstances, the contention of the

appellant is accepted and the addition made by the

A.O. of Rs. 62,71,821/- during this assessment year

2010-11 is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is

allowed.

ACIT vs. Bhopal Coop. ITA 45/2017 8. Even during the course of hearing, while examining

the paper book we find that the amount of Rs.3.15.748/-,

Rs.12,20,981/- and Rs.46,35,092/- totaling to

Rs.61,71,821/- has been offered to income in the income

tax returns for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09

respectively by treating them as inadmissible expenses. The

relevant pages of computation of income as well as the

income tax return form support the contention of the

assessee. The learned DR failed to controvert any of these

facts contended by the learned counsel for the assessee.

We, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the

case and in view of our verification of the relevant

documents annexed with the paper book, are of the view

that Rs.61,71,821/- claimed by the assessee as

“depreciation diminution written back” stands already

offered to tax in the preceding years as and when provided.

We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the findings

ACIT vs. Bhopal Coop. ITA 45/2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and

accordingly uphold the same.

dismissed.

Pronounced in open Court on 20th March, 2018.

Sd/- sd/-

(KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

20 March, 2018 Dn/- Copy to – Appellant/Respodent/Pr.CIT/CIT(A)/DR/Guard File By order Private Secretary