MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOP.BANK LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

(A) This appeal filed by the assessee is against impugned appellate order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Ghaziabad for assessment year 2013-14. Following grounds of appeal have been raised as under :

1. The Ld' CIT (A), Ghaziabad has erred by not giving the proper opportunity to plead the case before it and by passing the appeal order as non est. The order is not tenable as it is not based on natural ground realities and justice.

2. The Ld' CIT (A), Ghaziabad has erred by dismissing the appeal only on the ground that the appeal was filled manually i.e. other that electronically which is against the principle of due natural justice.

3. That the Ld' CIT (A), Ghaziabad and the Ld' Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle - 1, Ghaziabad have erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs. 62,00,000/- u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in share capital only by making a (Mahamedha Urban Coop. Bank Ltd.) reference of RBI Inspection Report, despite and ignoring the facts that the assessee had submitted all the evidence to prove their credit worthiness. After providing all the related documents the Ld' Assessing Officer neither raised any query for the same nor objected on any submitted documents. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the RBI Inspector had no role to justify the credit worthiness of the shareholder. They have only to give the report on financial discipline of the Bank according to ruies and regulations of the RBI.

4. That the learned Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle -1, Ghaziabad has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs. 1,22,65,050/- for disallowing the expenditure u/s 37 by making the reference of RBI Inspection report, despite and ignoring the facts that the assessee maintained its books of account properly and get audited even the Ld' Assessing Officer didn't rejected the books of account. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the Ld' Assessing Officer misunderstand the remarks of RBI inspector for non declaring the loans of Rs. 1366.51 Lacs as NPA and not making the provisions on the same. The Ld' Assessing officer also ignored the fact that if the assessee declared the loans of Rs. 1366.51 Lacs as NPA than a total interest of Rs. 69.17 lacs was also to be reversed in addition to making the provisions and due to which the declared profit would be reduced by Rs. 69.17 lacs. The Ld' Assessing Officer has also erred by taking the above base for disallowing the expenditure without pointing out any deficiencies in the Books of Account.

5. That the learned Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle -1, Ghaziabad has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs. 1,42,56,000/- for disallowing the expenditure by making the reference of RBI Inspection report, despite and ignoring the facts that the assessee maintained its books of account properly and get audited even the Ld' Assessing Officer didn't rejected the books of account and without pointing out any deficiencies in the Books of Account. The Ld' Assessing Officer also ignored the facts that the assessee has provided all the books of account and complete vouchers with supports and bills and explained the genuiness of the related expenditure.

6. That the learned Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle -1, Ghaziabad has erred in calculating the interest and penalty u/s 234 B, 244A & 234D by ignoring the amount of TDS/Advance Tax.

7. Any additional ground, if any, may be submitted with your kind permission. It is, therefore, prayed that the above additions may kindly be deleted and the appeal of the appellant assessee may be allowed on merits of the case.”

(Mahamedha Urban Coop. Bank Ltd.)

[B] Assessee’s appeal against assessment order dated 16.03.2016 passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of IT Act was dismissed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in limine by treating assessee’s appeal as non est ; on the ground that the appeal was not filed electronically. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that assessee’s appeal has also been filed electronically, separately. A copy of e-filed copy of Form 35 was submitted from assessee’s side during appellate proceedings in ITAT. In view of this, she submitted that impugned appellate order dated 27/04/2017 of Ld. CIT(A) may be annulled being infructuous and the Ld. CIT(A) may be directed to dispose of assessee’s appeal filed electronically, on merits. The Ld. Departmental Representative agreed to this, and expressed no objection. As both sides are in agreement to this, we annul the impugned appellate order dated 27/04/2017 of Ld. CIT(A) being infructuous and direct Ld. CIT(A) to pass a fresh order, and decide the assessee’s appeal, filed electronically, on merits. For statistical purposes, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/01/2020.