2014 (1) TMI 1737 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - Revenue has disputed the deduction claimed for the reason, that the assessee has not created provision for bad and doubtful debts - Held that - In case of Banking Companies, the accounts are made in accordance with the RBI guidelines and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Although the assessee has named the provision as Provision for NPA , but in pith and substance the provision has been created for Bad and Doubtful Debts . The taxonomy of the provision has been done by the assessee to keep it in line with the RBI and NABARD guidelines. The assessee had already made provision though with a different nomenclature. We are satisfied that the assessee has made provision and claimed deduction in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(viia). The assessee is entitled to the benefit of same. The impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) for banking companies regarding deduction for bad and doubtful debts.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by a co-operative bank against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) regarding the disallowance of a provision for Non-Performing Assets (NPA) under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer disallowed the provision, stating that the bank did not make a provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this decision. The bank argued that the provision for NPA is the same as the provision for doubtful debts, created in accordance with NABARD and RBI guidelines. The department contended that specific non-performing accounts were not identified. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) which allow deductions for bad and doubtful debts for banking companies. The Tribunal noted that the bank had created a provision for NPA, which essentially served the purpose of providing for bad and doubtful debts, even if named differently. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case where no provision was made, unlike in the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the bank was entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(viia).

In conclusion, the Tribunal clarified that banking companies, including co-operative banks, are eligible for deductions under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions made for bad and doubtful debts. The Tribunal emphasized that the essence of the provision made by the bank, rather than the nomenclature, determines the eligibility for the deduction. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to RBI guidelines and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, in creating such provisions. The judgment set aside the earlier orders and allowed the appeal of the bank, recognizing its entitlement to the claimed deduction.