IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.: 974 & 975/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Raiganj Central Co-Operative D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Jalpaiguri Bank Ltd. Vs.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AAAAR6191E ITA No.: 2237/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raiganj Central Co-Operative J.C.I.T. (TDS), Range-6, Bank Ltd. Vs. Siliguri (Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AAAAR6191E Appearances:

Assessee represented by : N.C. Mondal, AR.

Department represented by : Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. DR.

Date of concluding the hearing : 27-November-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 11-February-2026

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 dated 07.03.2024 and 26.09.2024, respectively. Since the issues are common, all the three appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No. 974/KOL/2024:

“1. THAT on the facts of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

2. THAT on facts of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC has grossly erred in law and not justified by upholding the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 25.03.2015 by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalpaiguri without adjudicating the grounds of appeal in spite of clear direction in set aside order of this Hon'ble Court in ITA No.1685/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2012-13 dated 27-11-2019 in appellant's own case against the earlier order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-Jalpaiguri in appeal No.34/JAL/CIT(A)/JAL/2015- 16 upholding the aforesaid order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. That on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC has grossly erred in law and not justified by upholding the change of Status of the appellant under the Income tax Act, 1961 from "Co-operative Society" to "Company" disregarding the order of this Hon'ble Court in appellant's own case in A.Y. 2007-08, Α.Υ. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, though aforesaid orders were on record.

4. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has erred in law and not justified by upholding the imposition of dividend distribution tax of Rs.9,68,963/- under section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest thereon Rs.4,06,965/- under section 115-P of the Act considering the appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society, which is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.

5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has erred in law and not justified by upholding the addition of Rs. 1,55,91,319.99 debited in profit & loss account for Provision for overdue Interest which are deductible under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

6. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has erred in law and not justified by upholding the deduction of Rs. 1,26,30,371/- instead of correct amount of Rs. 3,87,16,463.61 which was resulting in short deduction of Rs. 2,60,86,093/- u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to wrong method adopted to determine the average outstanding of advances of rural branches, which is contrary to method prescribed under Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

7. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-Jalpaiguri, has grossly erred in law and not justified by upholding the deletion of Panjipara Branch of the appellant from the list of Rural branches while calculating the deduction allowable under