JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J.:- 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (for brevity "ITAT") Amritsar Bench in ITA No. 253 (ASR)/2012 (Assessment Year 2007-08) in terms whereof appeal of appellant-revenue against order of CIT(A) Jammu dated 16.03.2012 was allowed for statistical purposes and the assessment officer was directed to allow the claim of respondent-assessee after verifying the same. The factual matrix may briefly be noticed. Respondent-Assessee, which is a Co-operative Society engaged in banking business, declared an income of Rs. 3180861/- by filing return of income. It happened on 15.11.2007. Subsequently, a revised return came to be filed on 31.03.2009 declaring income of Rs. 5546705/-. The assessee claimed provision for NPA at Rs. 10470000/-. The Assessment Officer allowed the claim of 7.5% on Rs. 16016705/- (Net profit of Rs. 5546705/- plus provision for NPA) in terms of provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act which worked out to the tune of Rs. 1201253/-. As regards additional allowance of 10% of the aggregate advances on rural deposits, the Assessment Officer held that since the claim was made only during the course of assessment, the same could not be considered. He also held that out of three branches claimed as rural branches only one branch located at Vijaypur qualified as a rural branch and the two branches located at R.S. Pura and Akhnoor could not be treated as rural branches. However, CIT(A) allowed the relief. 2. On appeal by revenue before the ITAT, it was found that the respondent-assessee had claimed the provision for NPA of Rs. 10470000/- in the revised return. In regard to claim of 10% of aggregate of rural advances, it was found that the claim with regard to deduction on account of rural advances was raised for the first time by the respondent-assessee subsequent to filing of original return and revised e-return. Based on the judgment of Handle Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2006) 284 ITR 328 the ITAT was of the view that the claim of assessee was a legal claim made before the Assessment Officer and also made before CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessment Officer was directed to allow the claim after verifying the same. 3. Heard the rival sides and considered their respective submissions. 4. Therefore, the Assessment Officer was directed to allow the claim after verifying the same. 3. Heard the rival sides and considered their respective submissions. 4. After going through the impugned order we are of the considered view that the appeal is devoid of merit. We say so as it is not in controversy that the provision of NPA of Rs. 10470000/- was claimed by the respondent-assessee in the revised return and was duly reflected in the order of CIT(A). As regards claim of 10% of aggregate of rural advances it has rightly been found that the claim with regard to deduction on account of rural advances was raised for the first time on 09.11.2009 subsequent to filing of original return and revised e-return. It is not disputed that only Vijaypur branch qualified as a rural branch while two other branches located at R.S. Pura and Akhnoor did not qualify as such in terms of the norms fixed and could be treated as urban branches in terms of explanation (ia) to Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. ITAT was of the opinion that the claim of the respondent-assessee was a legal claim made before the Assessment Officer and reiterated before CIT(A). It accordingly directed the Assessment Officer to allow the claim after verifying the same. It is, indeed, indisputable that the Assessment Officer is under an obligation to assess the correct income and in this regard the assessee will be at liberty to point out facts justifying grant of relief/refund though such facts may not have been brought to the notice of Assessment Officer in the form of revised return. Thus viewed, the Assessment Officer was required to entertain all legal claims of assessee and allow the same in accordance with the provisions of law. We find no legal infirmity in the impugned order, hence the appeal is dismissed.