THE PANIPAT URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

After considering the aforesaid submissions, we find that, before the Ld. CIT(A), as well as before the AO in the rectification application u/s 154, the assessee has submitted that the average value of the investment has to be taken on account of those investments, whose income derived from are treated as exempt income u/s 10. But due to certain clerical mistakes while submitting the average value, the investment made in FMPs and debt instrument which does not form part of exempt income has also been considered and, accordingly, disallowance should be worked out after excluding these investments. Based on such working, revised computation of disallowance u/s 14A has been filed before us also. We are in tandem with contention of the assessee that only those investments should be considered for the purpose of disallowance which has rendered exempt income. Accordingly, we direct the AO to remove the investments while working out the average value whose income does not form part of the exempt income and only those investments should be considered whose income are exempt. AO is further directed to verify the calculation

As regards the addition of Rs. 28,618/- out of suspense account, the AO has observed that no details and explanation have been provided by the assessee. The case of the assessee was that the said amount was actual and confirmed liability of the assessee paid in the subsequent year.