Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.380/ASR/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 The ACIT, Vs. M/s Capital Local Area Bank Ltd., Circle-III, GT Road, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. PAN: AABCC363Q (Appellants) (Respondents)
Assessee By : Shri J.S. Bhasin, Advocate Department By : Shri S.S. Negi
Date of Hearing : 20.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018
ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal filed by the Revenue arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 22.03.2017 in relation to the Assessment Year 2014-15.
ITA No.380/ASR/2017
The first issue raised in this appeal is against the deletion of
addition of Rs.2,63,31,754/- made by the Assessing Officer on account
of depreciation in investments.
Briefly stated, the facts of this ground are that the assessee
revalued its Investments in securities and, accordingly, claimed
deduction for such reduction in value at Rs.2,63,31,754/-. The
Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of such depreciation, which view
was overturned in the first appeal. The Revenue is aggrieved against
such deletion of addition.
We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on
record. It is observed that the said reduction in the value of investments
has occurred because of valuation of shares and securities at the close of
the year with reference to the market value prevailing at that time. Such
securities/shares have been held by the assessee-bank as stock-in-trade
though described as ‘Investment’ in its account. It is seen that similar
issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the assesseee’s
own case for the preceding years as well. Vide order dated 15.03.2017,
ITA No.380/ASR/2017
the Tribunal in ITA No.209/Asr/2010 etc. for the Assessment Years
2006-07 onwards, the Tribunal has decided such issue in favour of the
assessee. The relevant discussion has been made in the order and the
final conclusion is contained in para 13 on page 30. Since the facts and
circumstances of the instant ground are admittedly similar to those
considered and decided by the Tribunal in earlier years, respectfully
following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this score.
The only other ground which arises in this appeal is against the
deletion of addition of Rs.95,83,444/-. The facts apropos this ground are
that the assessee debited this sum as ‘Broken period interest’, which
was claimed as deduction. The Assessing Officer did not allow such
claim. The view taken by the Assessing Officer was reversed in the first
appeal.
We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on
record. It is noticed that this issue is also of a recurring nature inasmuch
as the Tribunal in the aforesaid order upheld the view taken by the Ld.
CIT(A) in allowing deduction for broken period interest vide para 15,
ITA No.380/ASR/2017
page 31 of the Tribunal order. In the absence of the Ld. DR pointing out any difference in the factual matrix for the instant year vis-à-vis the
preceding years, we uphold the impugned order.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 21.02.2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
[N.K. CHOUDHRY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated, 21st February, 2018. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT
AR, ITAT, AMRITSAR.