आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कु मार धिरर ,न्याधयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला , लेखा सदस्य के सिक्ष BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.583/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.584/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of No.150, T.S.R. Big Street, Income Tax (Appeals), Kumbakonam, Circle-1, Kumbakonam.

Tamil Nadu-612001.

[PAN: AAAAT0148B]

( /Appellant)

अपीलार्थी ( /Respondent)

प्रत्यर्थी

/ Assessee by : Mr.Varun Ranganathan,Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से

for Mr.Ravi Kannan, Advocate.

प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Revenue by : A.Sasikumar, CIT /Date of Hearing : 17.02.2025 सुनवाई की तारीख घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 / O R D E R आदेश PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059368128(1) dated 04.01.2024 for the AY-2013014 and No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059435158(1) dated 06.01.2024 for the AY-2020-21 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi. Through the aforesaid appeals the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 04.01.2024 & 06.01.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi. Both the appeals are of the same assessee and hence adjudicated by this common order for the purposes of convenience.

ITA No.583/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2013-14

2.0 The only issue contested in the impugned appeal, through its grounds of appeal is regarding the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee vide his order dated 04.01.2024. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous. Consequently a request was made to remit the case back to the Ld.AO for re-adjudication.

3.0 Before proceeding further we deem it necessary to briefly recapitulate the brief factual matrix of the case. The appellant assessee is Cooperative Bank. It had filed its return of income for AY-2013-14 declaring loss of Rs.1,60,84,017/- on 30.09.2013. The case was selected for scrutiny wherein the Ld. AO, inter-alia, made an addition of Rs.9,66,65,844/- on account of inadmissible claim of bad debts in his order u/s 143(3) dated 22.03.2016. The Ld. AO had noted that, in terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank, the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) is only available to provisions for rural advances.

It is an admitted fact on records that this order was not contested by the assessee before any appellate authority.

4.0 Further, in assessee’s case another order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B was passed dated 12.03.2022 wherein the Ld. AO had apparently reopened the matter to verify the number of rural branches qua claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia). The Ld. AO completed the assessment making nil additions and determining total income at Rs.8,60,3,830/- as done in the order dated 22.03.2016 supra. The assessee contested this order before the Ld.CIT(A), which is subject matter of present appeal. In the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal after observing as under:-

“….Hence, considering the above facts and discussions above from point no.-(i) to (vi), it is clear that there is NIL addition made by the AO in its said re-assessment Order dated 12.03.2022. It appears that, no appeal has been preferred by the Appellant assessee against the original assessment order of the AO (dated 22.06.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act 1961). Which means that, the Appellant has accepted the said original assessment order of the AO dated 22.06.2016 and thus no relief can be given by this authority, also there is nothing new in this re-assessment order of the AO dated 12.03.2022 and thus there is no addition made by AO other than what is already accepted by the Appellant assesse. Further, in view of t