Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur
D.C.I.T. Akola, Akola vs The Buldhana District Central Coop. ... on 17 May, 2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND
SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021
(Arising out of ITA No.127/Nag./2015)
(Assessment Year : 2010-11)
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ................ Applicant
Akola Circle, Akola (Original Respondent)
v/s
The Buldhana District Central Co-operative ................Respondent
Bank Ltd., Sahkar Bhavan, Bonde Chowk (Original Appellant)
Buldhana 443 001 PAN - AAAAT9375N
Assessee by : Shri Manoj Moryani
Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Date of Hearing - 17/05/2024 Date of Order - 17/05/2024
ORDER
PER K.M. ROY, A.M.
By way of this Miscellaneous Application ("M.A."), the applicant Revenue seeks recall of the impugned order dated 06/03/2018, passed by the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in assessee's appeal being ITA no.127/Nag./2015, for the assessment year 2010-11.
2. The applicant Revenue has placed its submissions in a voluminous manner, which are reproduced below for better appreciation of facts:-
"1 This miscellaneous application is moved for the reason that there are presentations of incorrect fact by the assessee before the Hon'ble Bench for AY-2010-11 which was relied by the id. ITAT to decide the appeal of the assessee.
The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021
2. In this case, return of Income was filled on 11/10/2010 declaring loss of Rs. 31,52,20,169/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25/04/2011. The assessment order was passed on 19/03/2013 by assessing the total income at Rs.5,10,96,410/-
3. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has made following additions which were further contested in appeal:
(i) The AO added back excess overdue interest provision of Rs.
1,80,60,000/- finding that similar deduction was subject matter of dispute in A.Y. 2007-08 as per the assessment completed vide order u/s 143(3) dated 31/12/2009. For the detailed reasons assigned in the said assessment order for A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee's claim in this regard was not accepted. It was also held by the AO that the assessee had already availed the deduction for the provision for overdue interest by claiming the higher deduction u/s 80P. Thus, the assessee's claim was disallowed in the earlier years and hence the claim was not allowed.
(ii) Addition of Rs. 10,15,60,904/- was made on account of contingent income being booked on estimate basis of interest receivable from central government and state government at Rs. 17,16,80,205/ out of which Rs. 44,38,038/ received after 31/03/2010 and Rs 10,15,60,904/ is not receivable and therefore was reversed in succeeding year.
(iii) Addition of Rs. 14,40,90,700/- on account of claim of provision for bad debts in respect of rural advance as per Sec. 36(i)(viia) of the I. T. Act, 1961.
The demand of Rs. 2,13,33,390/- was determined for A.Y. 2010-11.
4. Further, order u/s 154 of the Act was passed for A.Y. 2010-11 on 31/10/2013 by allowing the brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 at Rs.(- 15,01,70,769/- and of A.Y. 2009-10 at Rs. (-)45,28,758/- by assessing total income at Rs. 4,65,67,652/-
5. Further, the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeal)-1, Nagpur against the order u/s 143(3) of the 1. T. Act, 1961 where in the assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:-
(i) The Ld. DCIT erred in disallowing the claim of excess overdue interest provision at Rs. 1,80,60,000/-, which was the reversal of NPA interest provision.
(ii) The Ld. DCIT erred in disallowing the claim of Rs. 10,15,60,904/- being the interest provision made under mistake that it may be receivable from government for agricultural debt relief.
(iii) The Ld. DCIT erred in disallowing the claim of provision for Bad Debts on account of advances given by Rural Branches.
(iv) The Ld. DCIT erred in not considering the brought forward losses for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Page | 2 The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021
6. The Ld. CIT(appeal) upheld the decision of the AO for addition of NPA of Rs. 1,80,60,000/- on the ground that the amount reversed in the year under appeal i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 has no correlation with the reversal of Rs.11,17,33,000/- in A.Y. 2008-09 disallowed by AO which has not been disputed by the assessee. Therefore, the question of any set off of the amount reversed during the year does not arise. Secondly, the appellant was asked specifically to give the bifurcation of amount reversed of Rs. 1,80,60,000/- during the year i.e. for more than 3 years and less than 3 years but the appellant failed to file such bifurcation. Thirdly, since the amount of NPA reversal has become final in A.Y. 2008-09 to the tune of Rs. 11,17,33,000/- which has not been disputed by the appellant. Therefore, it was held that the NPA figure of Rs. 1,80,60,000/- undoubtedly pertains to the immediately preceding financial year including the relevant current financial year which being less than 2 year is liable to be brought the tax. Thus, the addition of NPA of Rs. 1,80,60,000/- was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeal)-1, Nagpur.
(ii) Addition of Rs.10,15,60,904/- was made on account of contingent income being booked on estimate basis of interest receivable was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(appeal)-1, Nagpur It was allowed @ 7.5% of the total income u/s 36(i) (viia) of the Act.
7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (appeal), Nagpur, the assessee preferred appeal to the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal on the following grounds:
(i) The Ld. CIT(Appeal) erred in rejecting the claim of deduction in the computation of income in respect of reversal of NPA interest credited to P & L Account.
(ii) The Ld. CIT(Appeal) erred in not allowing the brought forward loss of A.Y. 2008-09 at Rs. 5,01,70,769/- though it was claimed in the returns of income for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11,
(iii) The Ld CIT(Appeal)-1 erred in holding that the carried forward of losses is not emanating from the return of income filed for A.Y. 2008-09.
8. The department filled second appeal u/s 253(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 15/04/2015 on the following grounds:
(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(Appeal) has erred in holding that the assessee, a non-scheduled co-
operative bank, is also eligible for deduction of Rs. 14,40,90,700/- u/s 36(1)(via) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(appeal) has erred in holding that the assessee, a non-scheduled co- operative bank, is also eligible for deduction not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by its rural branches u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act 1961 disregarding the fact that such deduction is allowable under Rule 6ABA of the 1. T. Rules only to a scheduled bank.
Page | 3 The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021
(iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(appeal)-1, Nagpur is perverse in as much as the Ld. CIT(appeal)- 1, Nagpur has deleted the disallowance of Rs. 10,15,60,904/- made by the A.O. on account of reversal of contingent income made by the assessee, without any discussion and any finding being given for such deletion.
9. The Hon'ble ITAT order received in this office on 06/03/2018 wherein vide ITA No. 127/NAG/2015 held the following decisions:-
(i) Vide ITA No. 127/NAG/2015, the assessee raised the issue regarding the claim of deduction in respect of reversal of NPA Interest credited to P & L Account wherein he has raised the following ground that the Ld. CIT(appeal) erred in rejecting the claim of deduction in the computation of income in respect of reversal of NPA interest credited to P & L Account.
The above claim of the assessee has been allowed by the Hon'ble ITAT for A.Y. 2010-11. The Hon'ble ITAT held that the assessee's claim is bonafide and the amount which has been reversed and debited to the P & L Account for A.Y.2011-12 has already been added in the computation of income because the assessee has already claimed the same in the computation of income for A.Y. 2010-11 that is the year under consideration and in view of these facts the claim of the assessee was allowed by the Hon'ble ITAT and on this issue, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
10. It is kindly brought to the notice of ld. Bench that the issue adjudicated regarding the claim of deduction in respect of reversal of NPA Interest credited to P & L Account of Rs. 1,80,60,000/- is based on presentations of incorrect fact by the assessee before the Hon'ble Bench for AY-2010-11 which was relied by the Id. ITAT to decide the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 127/NAG/2015.
11. It is humbly stated that the AO has made the addition on the claim of deduction in respect of reversal of NPA Interest credited to P & L Account of Rs. 1,80,60,000/-which is reproduced for convenience regarding this issue appearing in para 5.2(1) of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2010-11 of the assessee dated 19.3.2013 as under-
"Deduction for excess overdue provision of Rs. 1,80,60,000/-.
Similar deduction was subject matter of dispute in AY 2007-08 as per the assessment completed vide order u/s 143(3) dated 31/12/2009. For the detailed reasons assigned in the said assessment order for AY 2007-08, the assessee's claim in this regard is not acceptable. It was also held by the AO that the assessee has already availed the deduction for the provision for overdue interest by claiming the higher disallowed/ added in the earlier years and hence the same should be deducted in this year is not acceptable. This matter is also subjudice in as much as the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is pending before the ITAT, Nagpur".
12. The addition on this issue in assessment order for A.Y.2010-11 is based on assessment order of A.Y.2007-08 therefore, the basis of addition in that year is reproduced for kind ready reference.
Page | 4 The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021 In the year 2007-08, the AO has stated that the deduction claimed for taxable income on account of 'realized/ reversal of overdue interest' and on account of reversal of NPA provision is not as per law and provision and against the principal of accounting books of accounts as far as the assessee adopting "Mercantile System". Since, the assessee claiming deduction from taxable income on account of reversal of debts out of disallowed provision of bad and doubtful debt asset (NPA) itself is under wrong presumption. The amount so claimed for deduction were never treated as bad and also were not written off from the books of account. Mere making provisions of existing bad debts out of receivable are not eligible for deduction.
In case, the assessee has written off the debts from books and the same are realized or written back, in that case, the deduction can be allowable. But in the case of assessee ban, the facts are not like this. Hence, the reversal of amount is not in fact reversed out of written off bad debts but it is out of unrealized debts or debtors.
13. For AY 2010-11 on the claim of deduction in respect of reversal of NPA Interest credited to P & L Account of Rs. 1,80,60,000/-, Ld. CIT (A) in para 11 of CIT (A)-1/311/2013-14 dated 27.1.2015 had confirmed the addition of the AO on the following ground which is reproduced for ready reference and r convenience:
"11. I have carefully considered the facts of the case. As pointed out by the appellant it is observed that on identical facts, my learned predecessors have decided the issues vide order No. CIT(A) I/013/09-10 dated 05-07-2010 for AY 2007-08 and vide order No. CIT(A)-1/339/2011- 12 dated 15.11.2012 in Akola District Co-operative Bank for A.Y. 2009-10 holding that the addition on interest on NPA is required to be made in accordance with Board's Circular dated 09.10.1994. I have also followed the said Board's Circular and have decided the identical issue in Appeal No. CIT (A) -i/174/2013-14 dated 05.11.2014 in Washim Urban District Co-op. Bank Ltd.
11.2 Considering the facts of the present case, it would be necessary to compute the income that is to be brought to tax being interest on certain amount classified as NPAs in view of the Board's above referred Circular dated 09.10.1984. The AR of the appellant was requested to provide the bifurcation of the interest accrued on NPAs and the figures of interest attributable to such NPAs which are outstanding for less than 3 years and more than 3 years as on 31.03.2010. The AR of the appellant has failed to file such bifurcation as on 31.03.2010. The contentions raised by the appellant that year is allowable Rs. 11,17,33,000/- in AY 2008-09 which was reversed, is not acceptable for the reason Firstly; that the amount reversed in the year under Appeal ie. AY 2010-11 has no co-relation with the reversal of Rs. 11,17,33,000/-in AY 2008-09 disallowed by AO has not been disputed by the assessee, hence becomes final, therefore, the question of any set-of against that amount of the amount reversed during the year does not arise. Secondly: the appellant was specifically asked to give the bifurcation of the amount reversed of Rs 1,80,60,000/- during the year, Le. for more than 3 years and less than 3 years, but the appellant failed to file such bifurcation. Thirdly: since the amount of NPA reversal Page | 5 The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021 has become final in AY 2008-09 to the tune of Rs. 11,17,33,000/- which has not been disputed by the appellant, therefore the NPA figure of Rs. 1,80,60,000/- undoubtedly pertains to the immediately preceding one financial year including the relevant current financial year, which being less than 2 years, is liable to be brought to tax fully. In view thereof, 1 concur with the order of the AO and uphold the decision of the AO for addition of NPA of Rs. 1,80,60,000/-. Hence this ground is dismissed
14. Hon. Bench of ITAT in its order No. ITA No. 127/NAG/2015 dated 6.3.2018 had adjudicated on the first issue in the appeal of the assessee against the order No.CIT(A)-1/311/2013-14 of Ld.CIT(A)-1 Nagpur dated 27.01.2015 rejecting the claim of deduction in respect of reversal of NPA interest credited to the P&L A/c. The assessee has raised the following ground:-
1. "The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting the claim of deduction in the computation of income in respect of reversal of NPA interest credited to Profit & Loss Account."
15. Relevant para of the above referred order Para 4 to 7 is humbly reproduced dealing with above referred ground of appeal on the claim of deduction in the computation of income in respect of reversal of NPA interest credited to Profit & Loss Account for ready reference as under:
"4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that reversal of doubtful claim made with the Government of subvention of interests, the assessee has credited a sum of Rs. 17,16,80,205/ in the P& L A/c on estimate basis. The assessee enclosed the details of the same in its Paper Book at page 26, which are extracted here under for ready reference:-
Sr. Particulars Amount (`) no.
Kharif Season 2009-10 interest @ 1.75%
1. 14592900/-
subvention receivable up to 31.03.2010
Kharif season 2009-10 interests @ 3% subvention
2. 25016401/-
receivable up to 31.03.2010 Kharif season 2009-10 interests @ 4% Punjabrao
3. Deshmukh Scheme & interest Subvention up to 24000000/-
31.03.2010 on ` 30.00 crore Central Government Agricultural Loan Waiver & Loan Repayment Relief Scheme 2008, amount
4. receivable from Central Government ` 5849.08 98070904/-
lacs and interest receivable for the period 01.11.2008 to 31.03.2010 for 17 months @ 12% Receivable from Government of Maharashtra in
5. respect of Kharif season 2009-10 interest 10000000/-
Subvention @ 1% on the loan
Total: 171680205/-
Page | 6
The Buldhana District Central
Co-operative Bank Ltd.
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021
5. These claims are on account of subvention of interests for Kharif season for the year 2009-10 and probably waiver of loan and Payment Scheme, 2008. Before us, it was explained by the assessee that out of the total credit of Rs. 17,16,80,205/-, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 10,15,60,904/- because the said amount has been included in the income wrongly by the assessee and this came to his knowledge when this was pointed out by the Statutory Auditor in his Audit Report and, therefore, the same was claimed in the computation of income submitted along with the return of income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 34 of the assessee's Paper Book wherein Auditor's Report dated 06.09.2010, the estimate is given as under:-
1. CONTINGENT BOOKING OF INTEREST RECEIVABLE ON ESTIMATED BASIS:
"In the case of interest earned on advances and discount the bank has included Rs. 1716.80 Lakh interest under the head "Gov Agro Rural Debt Relief. This amount included interest subvention due from state also. As per bank, it has received amount of Rs. 443.81 Lakh before 31.03.2011 and now balance amount of Rs. 1411.66 Lakhs pertains to the amount of interest, which has been booked by them on estimated basis toward amount of Agril Debt relief and Interest Subvention received by them late from Central and State government. The Amount 1015.61 is reversed and debited to profit and loss account of the audit period.
Out of total outstanding of Rs. 1716.80 lakhs and balance amount of Rs. 257.38 Lakhs still receivable from State and Central Government, out of Rs which Rs. 14.87 lakhs is received in the month of June 2011.
6. It was explained that the credit was made on the basis that the assessee may receive the same from State Government and Central government as per the Scheme of 2008 but actually as against demand of Rs. 9,80,70,904/-, the assessee received only a sum of Rs. 2,05,10,000/- from the central Government and balance demand of Rs. 7,78,60,904/- was rejected. Similarly, a demand of 4% in respect of Panjabrao Deshmukh Interest Waiver Subvention Scheme was also rejected for an amount of Rs. 2.40 Crores. Therefore, the total comes to Rs. 10,15,60,904/- A.Y. 2011-12 and in the computation f income, same has been added because the claim has already been made in the return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. It was explained that this claim was made in A.Y. 2010-11 become it was subsequently pointed out by the Statutory Auditor in his Audit Report. It was explained that there is no claim of double deduction for this, he submitted the following details as under:-
Kharif Season 2009-10 4% Panjabrao Deshmukh Scheme & Interest Subvention up to 31.03.2010 24000000/-
1.
on Rs. 60.00 Crors. This amount is receivable by the Taluka Societies & therefore reversed.
Central Government Agricultural loan waiver and
2. Loan Repayment Relief Scheme 2008, amount 14592900/- receivable from Central Government Rs. 5849.08 lacs for the period 01.11.2008 to 31.03.2010 for Page | 7 The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021 17 months @ 12%. This interest is receivable at the treasury rate at Rs. 20510000/- (98070904-
20510000)
Total 101560904/-
7. In view of the above details, we are convinced that the assessee's claim is a bonafide and the amount which has been reversed and debited to the P & L A/c for A.Y. 2011-12 has already been added in the computation of income because the assessee has already claimed the same in the computation of income for A.Y. 2010-11 i.e. year under consideration. In view of these facts, we allow the claim of the assessee and this issue of assessee's appeal is allowed.
16. From the above paras of assessment order, Ld.CIT (A) order and Hon. ITAT order, it is kindly brought to notice of Ld. Bench that in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 19.3.2013, there are separate addition on deduction for excess overdue provisions of Rs.1,80,60,000/- and contingent income reversed of Rs. 10,15,60,904/-
Particulars Amount Total amount of interest shown as receivable 17,16,80,205 Amount received on 30.04.2010 1,00,00,000 Amount received on 04.08.2010 39,90,000 Amount received on 13.08.2010 1,65,20,000 22.11.2010 amount received as above 10,15,60,904 Amount received on 31.03.2011 1,38,70,338 Balance 2,57,38,963
17. It is kindly brought to the notice of ld. Bench in ITA No. 127/NAG/2015 dated 6.3.2018 in case of assessee that in the appellate order in para 1 to 7, there is no discussion on issue of addition made of Excess Overdue Interest Provision of Rs. 1,80,60,000. The facts provided by assessee and relied by Hon. Bench mainly concentrate on amount not realised on account of Govt. Agricultural debt relief as provided in table related to Punjabrao Deshmukh Scheme and Central Government Agricultural loan waiver and one Repayment Relief Scheme 2008 and amount involved is Rs.10,15,60,904 in Para 1 to 7 of the order which resembles to addition made in assessment order Contingent Income reversed of Rs. 10,15,60,904/-.
18. Thus, there was mistake apparent from record u/s 254(2) in the decision of ITAT in ITA No. 127/NAG/2015 dated 6.3.2018 as facts relied differs from the ground of appeal raised by assessee and relief given by Hon ITAT.
19. The department has not filed any appeal before Hon. High Court on this issue.
Page | 8 The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021
20. In view of the above facts, the orders the Hon. ITAT (E-Court) for A.Y.2010-11 were erroneous and therefore, the Miscellaneous Application had been filed for A.Y. 2010-11.
21. In above case, the appellate order of Hon. ITAT was pronounced on 06.03.2018 and the time limit for passing order against filled Miscelleneous application was 6 month's from last day of that month in which Hon. ITAT order was passed and which expires in September, 2018. Thus, there is delay of approximately 3 years and 6months. Miscelleneous application could not be filed inadvertently and therefore, it is humbly requested that condonation of delay for late filling of M.A. may kindly be condoned.
22. Administrative approval of Hon. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur for late filing of Miscellaneous application before the Hon. ITAT was conveyed vide letter no. Pr.CCIT/NGP/Tech/Judl/MA to ITAT/2021-22 dated 11/08/2021
23. It is therefore humbly prayed to the Hon'ble Bench, ITAT Nagpur be pleased to recall the records and order in ITA no127/NAG/2015 dated 6.3.2018 for AY 2010-11 and decide the issue of the claim of deduction in respect of reversal of NPA Interest credited to P & L Account of Rs. 1,80,60,000/- of the assessee afresh after condoning the delay.
The relevant orders are enclosed as under:-
1. ITAT Nagpur's order in ITA NO 127/Nag/2012 dated 6.3.2018 for AY 2010-11
2. Order u/s 143(3) for AY 2010-11 dated 19.3.2013
3. CIT(A)'s order dated 27.1.2015 for AY 2010-11
4. ITAT order dated 13.3.2010 for AY 2007-08 in which appeal was decided against assessee on same addition.
5. Administrative approval of Hon.Pr.CCIT, Nagpur to file delayed M.A. in this case vide letter dated 11/08/2021.
3. At the very outset, we find that the applicant Revenue, at Para-21 of its application, prayed for condonation of delay in filing the instant M.A. for the reason that the Tribunal had passed the order in ITA no.127/Nag./2015, on 06/03/2018.
Page | 9 The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021
4. In case of the assessee the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, has passed order on 06/03/2018 vide ITA no.127/Nag./2015. The applicant Revenue has filed the present application belatedly by 1068 days as mentioned in Para-21 of their application. It is the submission of the applicant Revenue that the M.A. could not be filed inadvertently and hence prayed for condonation of delay for in filing the present M.A.
5. There is no power to condone the delay in filing the M.A., as no such authority is conferred by the statute [Malwinder Singh v/s Union of India, [2005] 278 ITR 568 (P&H)]. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the present M.A. is dismissed in limine. The graciousness of the learned Counsel for the assessee is well appreciated. We also find that similar view has been followed by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the following cases:-
i) Decision of ITAT, Nagpur Bench, in M.A. no.12-14/Nag./2019 (arising out of ITA no.96-98/Nag./2010), Daryapur Shetkari Sahakari Ginning & Pressing Factory Ltd. v/s ACIT, order dated 20/03/2020; and
ii) Common decision of the ITAT, Nagpur Bench, in M.A. no.50 & 51/Nag./2023, (arising out of ITA no.122 & 123/Nag./ 2021) Pradeep Birmal Kundu & Ors. v/s DCIT, order dated 04/08/2023.
6. Further, coming to the merit of the application, it appears that the applicant Revenue is trying to conduct a review of the order already passed without pointing out any mistake apparent from the order. The Tribunal had evaluated the facts and circumstances of the case when it originally dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Whether the Tribunal was on merits or otherwise while dismissing the appeal is not a matter which comes for determination for this proceeding. If the assessee is aggrieved by the merits of Page | 10 The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
M.A. no.1/Nag./2021 the order passed by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal, it is at liberty to pursue its remedy in accordance with law. The observations made by the Bench in the impugned order are, therefore, confined to the decision of the Bench on exercise of jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we decline to interfere with the order dated 06/03/2018, passed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the M.A. is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, M.A. filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/05/2024 Sd/- Sd/-
V. DURGA RAO K.M. ROY
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
NAGPUR, DATED: 17/05/2024
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Assessee;
(2) The Revenue;
(3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial);
(4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and
(5) Guard file.
True Copy
By Order
Pradeep J. Chowdhury
Sr. Private Secretary
Sr. Private Secretary
ITAT, Nagpur
Page | 11