9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 65 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - Quantum of the assessee's provision for bad and doubtful debts vis- -vis the statutory limits - HELD THA - CIT(A) has already indicated corresponding entitlement to be much more than the claim(s) raised as the tax payer's behest. We make it clear that there is no rebuttal in the Revenue's pleadings regarding the assessee's corresponding provision's entitlement amounts. This indeed in addition to the fact that the Revenue has already lost the very substantive grievance in all preceding assessment years. We uphold the CIT(A)'s directions deleting the impugned bad debts disallowance in very terms. This first and foremost substantive grievance is decided in assessee's favour. Bonus disallowance with ex-gratia bonus - Revenue's case before us is that once the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting it was very much incumbent on its part to the claim the impugned relief on the very basis than merely making provision followed by its board's resolution passed in the succeeding financial year(s) - HELD THAT - We note that this particular issue had arisen between the parties in earlier assessment year as well. 2012 (3) TMI 492 - ITAT PUNE - We thus adopt judicial consistency qua this second issue as well as to reject the Revenue's corresponding substantive grounds in both these appeals. Set off of brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation in A.Y. 2007-08 wherein no such losses remain to be carried forward - HELD THAT - The same admitting involves more a reconciliation than any substantive adjudication on our part. We thus restore the Revenue's instant third substantive ground back to the file of Assessing Officer his afresh computation as per law. Ordered accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of CIT(A)’s action deleting section 36(1)(viia)(a) disallowances. 2. Bonus disallowance(s) including ex-gratia bonus. 3. Set off of brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Correctness of CIT(A)’s action deleting section 36(1)(viia)(a) disallowances: The Revenue’s primary grievance concerns the CIT(A)’s deletion of disallowances under section 36(1)(viia)(a) for the amounts Rs. 45,70,370/- and Rs. 6,03,36,905/- restricted to Rs. 83,00,000/- for the respective assessment years. The CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) restricted the deduction to 7.5% of the total income before set-off of losses, comparing it to the NPA provision. The AO disallowed Rs. 45,70,370/- on the grounds that no such provision was made by the appellant. However, the appellant argued that proper provisions were made in the Profit & Loss Account (P&L A/c) totaling Rs. 712.67 lakhs, thus eligible for the deduction under section 36(1)(viia). The CIT(A) clarified that the deduction should be restricted to the provision actually made in the books. The appellant made provisions of Rs. 712.67 lakhs, which was below the ceiling of Rs. 2985.88 lakhs (10% of average aggregate rural advances). The AO’s confusion stemmed from a misunderstanding of the legal provisions, as the appellant had the option to claim the deduction under the main sub-section or the 1st proviso. The CIT(A) referenced the ITAT Pune Bench decision in the case of Nanded District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., confirming that the deduction should be restricted to the actual provision made in the books. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the Revenue’s pleadings did not rebut the appellant’s entitlement amounts and that the Revenue had lost similar grievances in preceding assessment years. Therefore, the Tribunal decided this issue in favor of the assessee. 2. Bonus disallowance(s) including ex-gratia bonus: The second issue involved the disallowance of Rs. 1,37,24,484/- as bonus and ex-gratia bonus amounts of Rs. 36,34,923/- and Rs. 2,76,876/- for the respective assessment years. The Revenue argued that the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should have claimed the relief based on actual provision rather than a board resolution passed in the succeeding financial year(s). The Tribunal referenced the co-ordinate bench’s order in ITA No. 617/PN/11 for AY 2007-08, which rejected the Revenue’s contentions. The Tribunal noted that the amounts were actually paid by the assessee before filing the return, and the Board Resolution No. 55 dated 13.3.2007 crystallized the liability for ex-gratia payment to employees. The Tribunal found the Revenue’s objections unfounded and upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion of the disallowance, thus rejecting the Revenue’s grounds on this issue. 3. Set off of brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation: The third issue pertained to the set-off of brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2008-09. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the set-off of brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation from AY 2007-08. The Revenue contended that no such losses remained to be carried forward. The Tribunal noted that this issue involved more reconciliation than substantive adjudication and restored the matter to the AO for fresh computation as per law. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 2869/PUN/2016 for statistical purposes and dismissed ITA No. 2871/PUN/2016. The order was pronounced in the open court on 12th May, 2022.
|
