RUKMINI SAHAKARI BANK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1. Without considering facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar, has erred in making aggregate addition of Rs. 4,20,858/- on account of Entrance Fees and nominal Reserve Fund and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the same. (Tax Effect: Rs. 1,30,045/-).

2. The Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar, has erred in making addition of Rs. 15,125/- on account of excess claim of depreciation and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the same. (Tax Effect: Rs. 4,674/-).

3. The Assessment Order is not in keeping with the provisions of law and needs to be cancelled. (Tax Effect: Rs. 1,34,720/-).

4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”

3. At the very outset, there is delay in filing the present appeal of 24 days. The appellant filed an affidavit stating that the delay in filing the present appeal had occurred on account of misplacing the order of the CIT(A) in the office of the Authorised Representative. The averments made in the affidavit for condonation of delay were not controverted by the ld. CIT-DR. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay of 24 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a cooperative bank engaged in the business of banking. The return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 17.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,64,40,394/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 30.11.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.1,68,76,680/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the following items of receipts, which are credited to the Reserve Fund Account :- Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) i. Entrance Fee 372/- ii. Election deposit 5,250/- iii. Building Fund 2,73,537/- iv. Leading Network Deposit 2,502/- v. Other Payables 4,817/- vi. Nominal Membership fee 1,34,380/- Total 4,20,858/- 5. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.15,125/- on account of excess claim of depreciation.

6. Even on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.4,20,858/- on account of Entrance Fees and Nominal Memberships Fees credited to the Reserve Fund Account and the issue/ground relating to the addition of Rs.15,125/- on account of excess claim of depreciation was dismissed as not pressed.

7. Aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal.