The Commissioner Of Income Taxii, Nagpur v. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nagpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2007 -(The Commissioner of Income TaxII, Nagpur vs. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nagpur) Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. OCTOBER 01, 2009. Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dewani, learned counsel for the respondent. Shri Parchure, learned counsel contends that the merits of the deletion of dis-allowance by CIT raised by the appellant before ITAT have not been gone into and the tax effect could not have been a bar for undertaking such exercise. Shri Dewani, learned counsel points out that the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissionerof Income Tax vs. Camco Colour Company, reported at (2002) 254 ITR 565 (Bom.), has been relied upon and he further states that the dis-allowance was a provision made for doubtful debts. He states that said provision was also made out of income entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. In any case, said income was from banking activity and, therefore, deductible under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Shri Parchure, learned counsel argues that subsequently Section 80P has been amended. We find that the income under consideration was from banking activity and, therefore, was rightly treated under Section 80P of the Act. Even if dis-allowance by the Assessing Officer is upheld, the effect of Section 80P of the Act does not get diluted and total income remains Nil. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the ITAT by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Camco Colour Com., (supra), cannot be said to be unjustified. It is apparent that if issue arises again, the same can be appropriately dealt with by the authorities. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises for consideration in present appeal. Income Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE