Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai

Indian Bank, Chennai vs Jcit, Chennai on 15 March, 2017

             आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,         'बी'  यायपीठ, चे नई

               IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                           'B' BENCH, CHENNAI


   ी चं  पूजार , लेखा सद य एवं  ी ध#ु व$
                                       ु आर.एल रे %डी,  या'यक सद य केसम)

    BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
          SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                 *व*वध या चका सं / M.P. No.167/Mds/2016
                        (in I.T.A. No.1992/Mds/2015)
                  'नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year : 2011-12

M/s Indian Bank,                         The Joint Commissioner of
Corporate Office,                   v.   Income Tax,
Accounts Department,                     Company Circle II(2),
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,          Chennai - 600 034.
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014.

PAN : AAACI 1607 G
   (अपीलाथ//Appellant)                        (12यथ//Respondent)


 1ाथ+क क3 ओर से /Petitioner by    : Shri S. Swaminathan, CA
 12यथ/ क3 ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

       सन
        ु वाई क3 तार ख/Date of Hearing           : 10.03.2017
       घोषणा क3 तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2017


                           आदे श /O R D E R


PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

Through this Miscellaneous Petition, assessee is seeking rectification of order of this Tribunal in I.T.A. No.1992/Mds/2015 dated 11.03.2016.

2. The Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the issue raised before this Tribunal as Ground No.4 of Revenue's appeal in respect of assessment year 2011-12 was "whether for the purpose of computation of average rural advances under Rule 6ABA, the balances of every month or the incremental balances for each month is to be considered". In this connection assessee had relied on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited in I.T.A. Nos.551, 552 & 553/Mds/2009 dated 18.12.2009 and also the decision in the assessee's own case in I.T.A. Nos.2124, 2125 and 2126/Mds/2014 dated 30.11.2015. While deciding the issue in paragraph 30 of its order, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the Tribunal relying on the decision in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited in I.T.A. No.1205/Mds/2015 dated 29.01.2016, held that the deduction is allowable only in respect of rural debts and not on urban debts and the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of Revenue.

3. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the issue raised by the Revenue is the methodology of computation of average rural advances as contemplated under the provisions of Rule 6ABA and not whether the deduction is allowed in respect of rural debt or urban debt. Thus, the issue raised by the Revenue is only in 3 M.P. No.167/Mds/16 respect of the computation of average rural advances and on an identical issue, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has taken a view that for computation of average rural advances as required by Rule 6ABA, only the advances outstanding in each month is to be considered and not incremental advances. Therefore, according to the Ld. A.R., it is a mistake apparent on record to rely on a decision which is not on the subject and that too, a decision delivered much later to the date of hearing of the appeal.

4. On the contrary, Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of this Tribunal.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The Tribunal, while disposing of the issue, applied the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in I.T.A. No.1205/Mds/2015 dated 29.01.2016 and allowed the ground No.3 raised by the Revenue. Being so, we do not find any infirmity in the order of this Tribunal in allowing the ground taken by the Revenue. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order so as to rectify it. However, following sentence appearing on page 26, last line of paragraph 29 - "In view of the above, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed."

This is the typographical error and this sentence is deleted.

6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the court on 15th March, 2017 at Chennai.

                sd/-                                    sd/-
        (ध#ु व$
              ु आर.एल रे %डी)                          (चं  पज
                                                             ू ार )
       (Duvvuru R.L. Reddy)                        (Chandra Poojari)
 या'यक सद य/Judicial Member               लेखा सद य/Accountant Member

चे नई/Chennai,
                        th
Kदनांक/Dated, the 15 March, 2017.

Kri.


आदे श क3 1'तMल*प अNे*षत/Copy to:
                1. 1ाथ+क/Petitioner
                2. 12यथ//Respondent
                3. आयकर आयुOत (अपील)/CIT(A)
                4. आयकर आयुOत/CIT
                5. *वभागीय 1'त'न ध/DR
                6. गाड+ फाईल/GF.