THE SOLAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LIMITED,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1),, SOLAPUR

These two appeals by the assessee against the separate order dated 24-11-2017 and 22-11-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

Since, the issues raised in both the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

First, we shall take up appeal in for A.Y. 2013-14.

Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO on account of miscellaneous expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a Co-operative Society formed under Maharashtra State Co-operative Society‟s Act, 1961. The assessee debited miscellaneous expenses of Rs.2,45,78,241/-. The AO requested the assessee to produce bills and vouchers for the said expenses in order to satisfy nexus of the expenses with the business of the assessee. According to the AO the assessee produced only some portion of the expenses which are supported by self made vouchers. According to the AO the expenses involves some personal element as considering such defects, the AO disallowed Rs.24,57,824/- (Rs.2,45,78,241/- at 10%). The CIT(A) confirmed the same in the absence of any necessary evidences vide Para No. 5.5 of the impugned order. Before us, the ld. AR submits that the assessee has 220 branches and it is very difficult to produce all the details relating to miscellaneous expenses. The said miscellaneous expenses involve transport charges, tea and snacks etc. The ld. DR vehemently opposed the same and the assessee itself admitted to have disallowed Rs.50,000/- which indicates that the assessee has no necessary evidences. The ld. DR supported the order of CIT(A).

We note that the assessee is a bank and no personal expenses arise. Further, there is no dispute that the bank has 220 branches in rural area of Solapur district, Maharashtra and even getting vouchers or bills for every small petty expenses is very difficult as rightly pointed by the ld. AR. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to confirm the addition to an extent of Rs.50,000/- as admitted by the assessee before the CIT(A). We note that there is no such disallowance in subsequent scrutiny assessment for A.Y. 2018-19. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

In respect of ground No. 2, there is no argument advanced by the ld. AR. Accordingly, the same is treated as not pressed. Thus, ground No. 2 is dismissed as not pressed.

In ground No. 3 the assessee has assailed charging of interest u/s. 234B of the Act. The charging of interest u/s. 234B is mandatory and consequential. Accordingly, ground No. 3 is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of assessee in is partly allowed.

Both sides are unanimous in stating that the issues raised in the appeal and the facts in ITA No. 188/PUN/2018. Since, the facts in are similar to ITA No. 188/PUN/2018, the findings given by us while deciding the appeal of assessee in ITA No. 188/PUN/2018 would mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No. 189/PUN/2018, as well. The appeal of assessee is partly allowed, accordingly.

To sum up, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed.