THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - III, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. CAPITAL LOCAL AREA BANK LTD, JALANDHAR

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

addition of Rs.2,63,31,754/- made by the Assessing Officer on account

of depreciation in investments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.