Itl/37/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur-1, Nagpur v. M/S Amravati District Central Co-Operative Bnak Ltd., Amravati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 37 OF 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-1 Nagpur. -Vrs.- M/s Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Amravati _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's Orders. Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. A Parchure, counsel for appellant. Mr. Dewani, counsel for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ANDP.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. 19th OCTOBER, 2015 DATED : Heard respective counsel. Perused order dated14.09.2014. It is not in dispute that provisions as contained inSection 36(1)(viia) as amended have come in force from1.4.2007. Effort is to show us that as the financial yearrelevant for assessment year 2007-08 runs from 1.4.2006 till31.3.2007, the amendment is not applicable. Second contention is, the deduction is to be allowedas prescribed in Rules and in absence of correspondingamendment to the rules, the amendment to section could nothave been given effect to. Advocate Dewani points out that amendment hasbeen given effect to from assessment year 2007-08 and herethe Assessing Officer has considered that year only. He submits that Section 36(1)(viii) has been Hirekhan amended and deduction at par i.e. as available to scheduledbank has been extended even to cooperative banks, the laterpart which seeks to prescribe the manner need not bemodified. He contends that in any case, due to amendedsection the exercise undertaken by Assessing Officer could nothave been looked into under section 263 by CIT. We have perused the impugned order of ITAT.ITAT has precisely addressed this issue and in paragraph 14found that the provisions under section 36(1)(viia) have beenrightly applied by Assessing Officer to the case of assessee. It is thus clear that when substantive provision andamended section itself extends benefit at par to a cooperativebank and the manner prescribed governing the scheduledbank was very much available, the insistence on correspondingamendment to Rules is unwarranted. We agree with findingsin para 13 & 14 of the order of ITAT. As no substantial question of law arises, the appealis dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE