DY. CIT- AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. THE AMARAVATI DISTRICT CENTRAL, AMRAVATI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee bank filed its e-return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs. 12,82,63,748/- and aggregate total income of Rs. 15,29,04,950. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act and the refund of Rs. 16,50,150/- was adjusted against the demand for the assessment year 2010-11. Since the case was selected for scrutiny the AO issued notice u/s 143 (2) and 142 (1) and in response thereof the authorized representative attended the proceedings from time to time. The assessee bank also filed revised return declaring the total income of Rs. 13,83,57,280/-. After hearing the assessee the AO made addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of provisions on NPA and Rs. 24,94,46,361/- on account of overdue interest and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 41,23,51,310/-, considering the total income of the assessee as per income declared at Rs. 15,29,04,950/- in its original return. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted both the additions and directed to the AO to compute the total income of the assessee Rs. 13,83,57,275/- in view of the fact that the assessee has filed the revised return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 13,83,57,280/-. 3. The revenue challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following grounds: 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee, a non-scheduled co-operative bank, is also eligible for deduction of Rs. 25,94,46,361/- u/s 36(1)(viia) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

The coordinate Bench after hearing the parties dismissed ground No. 1 and 2 by upholding the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) vide order dated17.06.2016.

As regards ground No 3 the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the assessment order submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly directed the AO to compute the total income of the assessee as per the income of Rs. 13,83,57,275/-declared by the assessee in revised return as against the income of Rs. 15,29,04,950/- declared by the assessee in its original return.

The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has wrongly computed the income of the assessee at Rs. 15,29,04,950/- ignoring the fact that the revised ground was filed subsequently declaring the total income of Rs. 13,83,57,275/-. The Ld. counsel invited our attention to the return downloaded from the Income Tax Department system to show that the

We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on the record. We notice that the assessee has filed revised return in this case on 13.11.2013 declaring the total income of Rs. 13,83,57,280/-. The AO without pointing out any infirmity in the said return computed the total income taking the figures of total income declared by the assessee in its original return. We find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly directed the AO to compute the income of the assessee on the basis of the income declared by the assessee in the revised return and delete the addition of Rs. 1,45,47,670/-. Hence, in our considered view, the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) does not require any interference by this Tribunal. We therefore uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue. Since, ground No. 1 and 2 has already been dismissed by the coordinate Bench and we have dismissed ground No. 3 of this appeal, the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as dismissed.

CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Nagpur 6. Guard file.