Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar v. The Hoshiarpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 19, 2013 ITA No. 327 of 2011 (O&M) Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar …Appellant Versus The Hoshiarpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. …Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRIHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate,for the appellant. Mr. Munish Kapila, Advocatefor the respondent. 1To be referred to the Reporters or not?2Whether the Judgment should be reported in theDigest2Whether the Judgment should be reported in theDigest HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The present appeal under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') arising out of an order passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar(for Short “the Tribunal”) in respect of the assessment year 1994-95. The Revenue has claimed the following substantialquestions of law: “i)Whether ITAT is right in giving relief underSection 154 on an issue, which is the very basisof assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147and which amounts to propounding a position oflaw that the issue of assumption of jurisdictionunder Section 147 can be challenged by way of rectification? ii)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is right indismissing the appeal of the revenue on the issueof disallowance of deduction under Section 80Pon interest earned on investment of surplusreserves where such investment is not governedby any statutory provisions for carrying on thebusiness of banking? iii)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was right indismissing the appeal of the revenue on the issueof disallowance of deduction under Section 80Pon interest earned from utilization of voluntaryreserves other than statutory reserves when theHon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the similarissue to the file of CIT(A) in the case of MehsanaDistrict Co.-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO 251 ITR 522?” Initially, the assessment was finalized in terms ofSection 143(3) of the Act on 28.02.2002. In the said order, theinterest income earned from IDBI and PSEB bond was taken asincome from other sources. The assessee made an application forrectification of the assessment order on 23.02.2005 for the reasonthat the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i)of the Act has been wrongly disallowed. The said rectificationapplication was declined by the Assessing Officer vide order dated8.3.2005. However, an appeal against the said was allowed. TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) inter alia relied upon thefact that the identical issues in the assessment years 1991-92,1993-94, 1996-97 and 1997-98 have been decided by theTribunal vide common order passed on 04.02.2005. It was heldthat investment in PSEB bonds and IDBI bonds by the assesseewere eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It may be noticed that Revenue's appeal against order dated04.02.2005 has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Courtin ITA No.187 of 2005 decided on 12.12.2005. In view of the said fact and for the reasons mentionedin order dated 12.12.2005 passed by this Court, we do not findthat any substantial question of law arises for consideration of thisCourt. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 19.02.2013Atul/Vimal (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE