DCIT/ACIT, LTU-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 806/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata........................................................................................Appellant 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. United Bank Of India……………………………………………………............................Respondent 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 806/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. United Bank Of India…………………………………………………….......................Cross-Objector 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata....................................................................................Respondent 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri I. Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 17, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal Read As Under:
Section 115JSection 1ISection 2(5)Section 211
36(1)(viii) by Rs.31,47,73,346/- which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.
9
ITA No. 806/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017
Assessment Year 2011-12
M/s. United Bank of India
4. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in sustaining