9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 04.11.2016. Subsequently, the assessment records were examined and a show cause dated 07.02.2019 u/s. 263 of the Act was issued by the ld. Pr. CIT stating that assessee has incorrectly debited a sum of Rs. 35,93,215/- in its profit and loss account on account of PAC Development Fund under the head 'Other expenses' which is not an actual expenditure towards business activities and thus not allowable in the hands of the assessee. In response, the assessee filed its submissions which were considered but not found acceptable and the order passed by the Assessing Officer was considered as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and the same was set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be established crediting the amount received as stipulated contribution from RSCB/CCB/Other co-operative institutions as per details given below. It was submitted that as regard the procedure for utilizing the fund, at DCCB level, a committee of followings persons is constituted to issue sanction and supervise the utilization of fund:- 1. Managing Director of Concerned CCB : Chairperson 2. Chairperson of the concerned society : Member 3. Deputy registrar/assistant registrar : Member 4. Executive officer of DCCB : Member 5. It was submitted that the above committee should meet at least once in a quarter to take decision on all the proposals. It was submitted that as the fund shall be the part of bank's own fund, it will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bligation or title and determining the business profits of the assessee, it is not a provision for know existing liabilities whereas as discussed above, the PAC development fund is purely an "Ascertained Liability" & "Administration & Utilization Thereof" is not with the assessee and not for the benefit of assessee & thus is an ascertained liability/provision & is thus a business expenditure. Thus when facts are clear, or where another view is possible, the revision u/sec. 263 of Act is not permissible as held in following decisions: * CIT vs. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214 (Kar.) * CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. (2003) 130 taxman 67 (SC) * Meghalaya Plywood Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 160 taxman 89 (Gauhati) 7. It was fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. In its submission, the assessee bank merely reiterated that the contribution to PACS Development Fund is obligator to the assessee bank. However, the assessee bank has failed to explain that the contribution towards PACS Development Fund is actually an expenditure which has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession. 6.1 Further, in the case of CIT, Jaipur-II Vs M/s. Rajasthan State C-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur in DBIT Appeal No. 290/2016, the Hon'ble High Court, Jaipur has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. However, as informed by office of the PCIT-2, Jaipur vide their letter dated 07.01.2019, the decision of the Hon'ble High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT, Jaipur in DBIT appeal No. 254/2011, the Hon'ble High Court, Jaipur vide its order dated 20.04.2017 answered the issue in favour of department and against the assessee. 7. In view of above discussion, the assessment order passed by the AO is considered erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, hence, set aside to the file of the AO to the aforesaid extent for making afresh after carrying out enquiries, if required, and after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. " 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the matter is covered in favour of the assessee in its own case by the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in DBI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m is erroneous in nature as such an order passed by the jurisdictional High Court and that too, in assessee's own case is binding on the Assessing officer. The decision in case of M/s. Churu Central Cooperative Bank has been rendered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court on 20.04.2017 and therefore, where the decision in assessee's own case has been rendered subsequently by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court on 5.09.2017, the latter decision shall clearly take precedence over the former decision and even where two views are possible and where the AO has followed the later decision while allowing the claim of the assessee, the view so taken by the AO cannot be held to be erroneous in nature. 11. It is also interesting to note th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
