Ita/204/2022 Of Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Seoni v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Jabalpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESHINCOME TAX APPEAL No. 196 of 2022 BETWEEN:- JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANKMARYADIT, SCHOOL, SEONI THROUGHCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, “SAHAKARIBHAWAN”, G.N. ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND,SEONI, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....APPELLANT (BY SHRI BHASKAR GANGULY, ADVOCATE) AND 1.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 3.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SEONI,FIRST FLOOR, WAINGANGA HEIGHT,OPPOSITE VATIKA RESTAURANT, BARAPATHAR, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA, ADVOCATE ) AND INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 201 of 2022 BETWEEN:- JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANKMARYADIT, SCHOOL, SEONI THROUGHCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, “SAHAKARIBHAWAN”, G.N. ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND,SEONI, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....APPELLANT (BY SHRI BHASKAR GANGULY, ADVOCATE) AND 1.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 3.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SEONI,FIRST FLOOR, WAINGANGA HEIGHT,OPPOSITE VATIKA RESTAURANT, BARAPATHAR, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA, ADVOCATE ) AND INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 202 of 2022 BETWEEN:- JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANKMARYADIT, SCHOOL, SEONI THROUGHCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, “SAHAKARIBHAWAN”, G.N. ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND,SEONI, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....APPELLANT (BY SHRI BHASKAR GANGULY, ADVOCATE) AND 1.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 3.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SEONI,FIRST FLOOR, WAINGANGA HEIGHT,OPPOSITE VATIKA RESTAURANT, BARAPATHAR, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA, ADVOCATE ) - 4 - AND INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 203 of 2022 BETWEEN:- JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANKMARYADIT, SCHOOL, SEONI THROUGHCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, “SAHAKARIBHAWAN”, G.N. ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND,SEONI, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....APPELLANT (BY SHRI BHASKAR GANGULY, ADVOCATE) AND 1.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 3.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SEONI,FIRST FLOOR, WAINGANGA HEIGHT,OPPOSITE VATIKA RESTAURANT, BARAPATHAR, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA, ADVOCATE ) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 204 of 2022 BETWEEN:- JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANKMARYADIT, SCHOOL, SEONI THROUGHCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, “SAHAKARIBHAWAN”, G.N. ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND,SEONI, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....APPELLANT (BY SHRI BHASKAR GANGULY, ADVOCATE) AND 1.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) INCOME TAX, JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA, ADVOCATE ) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 204 of 2022 BETWEEN:- JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANKMARYADIT, SCHOOL, SEONI THROUGHCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, “SAHAKARIBHAWAN”, G.N. ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND,SEONI, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....APPELLANT (BY SHRI BHASKAR GANGULY, ADVOCATE) AND 1.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) INCOME TAX, JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, “AAYKARBHAVAN”, AAYKAR SQUARE, NAPIERTOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 3.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SEONI,FIRST FLOOR, WAINGANGA HEIGHT,OPPOSITE VATIKA RESTAURANT, BARAPATHAR, DISTRICT- SEONI (M.P.) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA, ADVOCATE) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reserved on :04.05.2023Pronounced on :12.06.2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, comingon for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following: ORDER All these appeals bearing ITA No.196/2022, ITA No.201/2022,ITA No.202/2023, ITA No.203/2022 & ITA No.204/2022 filed u/S 260Aof Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “Act”) assailing common finalorder dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P/24) passed by Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for brevity “Tribunal”)in respective cases proposing common substantial question of law, arebeing decided by this common order. 2.Facts are picked up from ITA No.196/2022 for disposal of allthese five three ITAs. 3.The proposed substantial questions of law framed by the Tribunalare as follows:- “1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in law that the ‘assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officerunder section 147/148 and consequent issue of notice under section 148did not suffer from invalidity and reason to believe escapement of incomewas bonafide? 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in law to set-aside the assessment and restore the matter back to theAssessing Officer for reverification of books of accounts on suspicion thatexcessive claim of over due interest by the appellant could not be ruledout. 3.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in law to enter into verification of correctness of quantum of overdue interest when there was no dispute on it and the issue did not arise outof Revenues appeal and grounds raised therein and as such exceeded itsjurisdiction vested in it under section 254 of the Act? 4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal is right in law to hold that there is excess claim for over dueinterest, made by the appellant and it’s finding on this issue is notperverse? 5.Whether the Tribunal is right in law to hold that over due interest(interest on non performing assets) per se, is not allowable under section36(1) (viia) of the Income Tax Act 1961? 6.Whether in the fact and circumstances of the law, the Tribunal isright in law to hold that he amendment made in section 43-D of the Act byFinance Act 2017 to insert the words “cooperative bank” as one of theentities for the benefit of this section is retrospective only from 01.05.2017and not from 01.04.2007. 7.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal is right in law to hold that the appellant could not support it’sclaim of deduction of over due interest, first by claiming it as non-recognized income covered by the RBI Guidelines and then alternativelyunder section 36(1) (viia) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as these arecontradictory? 6.Whether in the fact and circumstances of the law, the Tribunal isright in law to hold that he amendment made in section 43-D of the Act byFinance Act 2017 to insert the words “cooperative bank” as one of theentities for the benefit of this section is retrospective only from 01.05.2017and not from 01.04.2007. 7.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal is right in law to hold that the appellant could not support it’sclaim of deduction of over due interest, first by claiming it as non-recognized income covered by the RBI Guidelines and then alternativelyunder section 36(1) (viia) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as these arecontradictory? 8.Whether the Tribunal is right in law to not decide the issue as towhether the overdue interest is allowable under the guidelines of the RBIwhich have the overriding effect on all other law including the Income TaxAct, 1961?” 4.Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question ofadmission so also on final disposal. 5.Learned counsel for appellants is heard at length. Learned counselhas emphasized that the question of law as regards retrospectivity of theamendment made to Section 23(b) of the Finance Act, 2017, the groundof deduction of overdue interest qua the ideal guidelines has not beenconsidered by the Tribunal in its true perspective. 5.1Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon severaldecisions of various aspects which need not be gone into in view of thenature of the order being passed infra. 6.The facts reveal that the Tribunal was seized of three set ofappeals filed by the Revenue and two prosubjections by the assessee inrespect of three assessment years i.e. 2009-2010, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The aspect regarding retrospectivity was not of Section 43-D ofthe Finance Act, 2017, it seems from the record that the Tribunal hasapplied its mind to the ground raised by the appellants in Para 402 of theimpugned order while the other ground of deduction of overdue interestqua RBI guidelines is also discussed in Para 2, 4.3 & 4.4. 7.The proposed substantial question of law contained in paragraph52(1) in ITA No.196/2022, ITA No.201/2022 & ITA No.202/2022 areunique to the said ITAs. However, a comprehensive scrutiny of the saidproposed questions of law in the said three ITAs reveal that they aregeneric in nature and derive strength from the proposed substantialquestions of law in ITA No.196/2022, ITA No.203/2022 & ITANo.204/2022 and therefore do not need any separate consideration andthus shall suffer the same fate as the fate of the other proposedsubstantial questions of law in the connected ITAs (supra). 8.After hearing learned counsel for rival parties for pressing thedecision in the impugned order in the findings therein, it is obvious thatthe Tribunal has taken care to discuss all the issues raised before it and YS has rendered findings which is based primarily on facts. References mayhave been made of certain legal provisions but the adjudication andrendering of findings are essentially facts-centric. 9.It is settled principle of law that an appeal before this Court u/S260-A of the Act can be entertained only and any substantial question oflaw as involved which does not appears to be the case herein. 10.Consequently, in the absence of any substantial question of lawbeing made out much less the proposed one, this Court declinesinterference and dismisses ITA No.196/2022, ITA No.201/2022, ITANo.202/2022, ITA No.203/2022 & ITA No.204/2022 in limine. (SHEEL NAGU) (HIRDESH) JUDGE JUDGE