M/s Teacher's Co-operative Bank Ltd.,, Udupi v. DCIT, Udupi

ITA 1435/BANG/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 143521114 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAAAT8234E
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 1435/BANG/2012
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant M/s Teacher's Co-operative Bank Ltd.,, Udupi
Respondent DCIT, Udupi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 10-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 22-08-2016
Next Hearing Date 22-08-2016
First Hearing Date 22-08-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 05-11-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1435/BANG/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 M/S. TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE BALIGA TOWERS NEAR SERVICE BUS STAND UDUPI 576 101. PAN: AAAAT 8234E VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 UDUPI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. R. PRATI B HA ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMAMEENAKSHI JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 07 . 1 1 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 .1 1 .2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) MYSORE DATED 08.06.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN THE MANNER WHICH HE DID. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE E XPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) FURTHER OUGHT TO HA VE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT CREDIT BALANCE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NOTHING BUT THE EXCESS PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WRITTEN BACK AND HAVING DEDUCTED FROM THE TAXABLE INCOME THE SAME I S LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN THE HAND OF APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRE CIATED THAT NEITHER ANY PROVISION MADE FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEB TS NOR ANY REVERSAL OF THE SAME FROM TIME TO TIME IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE OF THE NPA PROVIS IONING NORMS OF ITA NO. 1435/BANG/2012 PAGE 2 OF 4 THE RBI AND SAME IS ALREADY INCLUDIBLE IN THE COMPU TATION OF TAXABLE INCOME. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ADDITION IS EXCESSIVE AR BITRARY AND UNREASONABLE AND OUGHT TO BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST LEVIED BY THE AO U/S.234B AND 234D OF THE ACT. 7. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT GROU ND NOS. 1 2 AND 7 ARE GENERAL AND GROUND NO. 6 IS CONSEQUENTIAL REGARDING INTERES T U/S. 234B AND 234D AND THEREFORE NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF THESE GROUNDS. REGARDING THE REMAINING GROUNDS SHE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY ONE ISSUE IS INVOLVED AS TO WHETHER THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF W RITE BACK OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT. IN THIS REGARD IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH THAT AS PER PARA NO. 5.4 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER REPROD UCED BY CIT (A) ON PAGE NO. 10 OF HIS ORDER IT IS STATED THAT IT IS CONCLU SIVELY PROVED THAT THE WRITE OFF OF THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WAS CLAIME D AND ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND THEREFORE THE CURRENT WR ITE BACK IS TAXABLE. THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT THIS CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS TO BE DISLODGED IF ANY RELIEF ON THIS ACCOUNT IS PRAYED FOR. IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMIT TED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT ON PAGE NO. 9 OF PAPER BOOK IS LETTER FILED BY ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION U/S. 154 OF IT ACT FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 24 53 710/- IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR NON PERFOR MING ASSETS (NPA) IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE IT ACT BUT DEDUCTION IS ALLOWAB LE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE IT ACT. BUT THIS APPLIC ATION OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 154 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 FILED ON 28.08.2008 WAS NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE AO. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF A LETTER DATED 26.05.201 2 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT AS P ER THE SAME IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 A SUM OF RS. 24 53 710/- WAS DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT AND IN COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE SAID YEAR THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT ADDED BACK DUE TO LAPSE ON THE ITA NO. 1435/BANG/2012 PAGE 3 OF 4 PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RETURN WAS FILED BELAT EDLY. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY SINCE A REVISED RETURN COULD NOT BE F ILED AN APPLICATION WAS MADE U/S. 154 OF THE IT ACT ADDING BACK THE SAID PR OVISION MADE FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII A) OF IT ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS A RESULT A TAX OF RS. 5 77 550/- BECAME PAYABLE AND WAS PAID ON 28.08.2008 AND THE APPLICATION U/S. 154 WAS MADE ON 28.08.2008 WHICH WAS NOT RESPONDED TO BY THE DEPARTMENT. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THIS SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. SHE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO / CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING THES E FACTS. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THIS IS AN ADMITTED POSITION OF FACT AND LAW THAT IF THE PROVISION IS M ADE IN AN EARLIER YEAR AND DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED FOR THE SAME ON WRITE BACK OF THE SAID PROVISION ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE U/S 41 (1). BUT IF NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED AND ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THIS PROVISION IN AN EARLIER YEAR THEN F OR WRITE BACK OF SUCH A PROVISION NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE YEAR OF W RITE BACK. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THIS THAT TH E DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION WHICH IS WRITTEN BACK IN T HE PRESENT YEAR. BUT THIS IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE APPLICATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 154 FOR R ECTIFICATION AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMOUNT OF TAX WAS ALSO PAID BY THE AS SESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE S APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION WAS ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS HEARD NOTHING FROM THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. IN SPITE OF THIS SUBMISSIO N BEFORE THE CIT(A) NO FINDING WAS GIVEN BY CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AS TO WHETHER TH IS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT OR NOT. UNDER THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRE SH DECISION AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MA TTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AND HE SHOULD GIVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING I N THIS REGARD AS TO WHETHER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR R ECTIFICATION U/S. 154 OF IT ACT STANDS ACCEPTED OR NOT AND IN CONSEQUENCE THERE OF THE DEDUCTION OF ITA NO. 1435/BANG/2012 PAGE 4 OF 4 NPA STANDS ALLOWED OR NOT. THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD P ASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED THE 10 TH NOVEMBER 2017. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.