9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(vii) of the Act. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer does not stand test of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Further, it is not in dispute that the amounts claimed as bad debts were actually written off in the books of account and in the light of the fact that the provisions for bad debts was not claimed in the earlier years which goes to prove that the claim is not hit by the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the bad debts claimed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed. Addition on account of alleged difference between the interest income declared by the appellant and the Form No. 26AS of the Department - Held that:- The information contained in Form No. 26AS cannot be itself the basis for making addition to the income returned. To the same effect, the decision of a coordinate bench of ITAT, Jabalpur, in the case of Ravindra Pratap Thareja Vs. ITO [2015 (10) TMI 1487 - ITAT JABALPUR]. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for due verification after affording reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -09 are as under: i. That the impugned order u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.02.2012 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- XXVIII, New Delhi, is bad in law and against the facts of the case. ii. On the facts circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-XXVIII, New Delhi has erred in upholding the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 24.12.2010 for the AY 2008-09, passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, Range 38, New Delhi in disallowance of deduction of ₹ 23,00,268/- on account of bad debts actually written off to party accounts. iii. That the appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter and/or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. ITA No. 840/Del/2013 for AY 2009-10: 3. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts related to the assessment year 2009-10 are stated hereunder: (a) The appellant is a cooperative bank. The return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 25th September, 2009, declaring taxable income of ₹ 4,61,84,880/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition by holding that the claim cannot be made without revising the return of income. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us with the present appeal. 5.1 Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the bonus amount of ₹ 19,49,792/- debited to P L account in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 and the same was offered to tax in the assessment year 2008-09 since the bonus was not actually paid. However, in the succeeding assessment year i.e. 2009-10, the same was claimed as deduction since it was paid during the year relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. Similarly, the appellant bank earned tax free interest of ₹ 2,55,233/- on IIFCL bonds which was offered to tax by mistake. Thus, both the items were claimed as deduction by filing revised computation. The Assessing Officer had denied the deduction following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra) and held that the assessee was not entitled for deduction, he had not made these claims by filing revised return of income. On appeal before the CIT(A) also, the CIT(A) confirmed the same by holding that the Assessing Officer had no power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvations are squarely applicable to the interpretation of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is co-terminus with that of the Income-tax Officer, if that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the Income-tax Officer. No exception could be taken to this view as the Act does not place any restriction or limitation on the exercise of appellate power. Even otherwise an Appellate Authority while hearing appeal against the order of a subordinate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations if any prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision the Appellate Authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There appears to be no good reason and none was placed before us to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities have discretion to permit such additional claims. Such claims need not be those which became available on account of change of circumstances of law but which were even available when the return was filed. 36. The Delhi High Court once again in recent judgment in the case of CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 682/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 129 observed that the Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not a technical one as to what is required to be determined in taxable income. In that sense assessment proceedings are not adversarial in nature. With these observations Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal reversing the decision of the assessing officer rejecting the claim of the assessee on the ground that no revised return was filed. 37. In case of CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.), Full Bench of this Court held that merely because a ground has not been raised though it could have been raised in support of the relief sought in the appeal, it cannot be said that such ground cannot be raised before the Tribunal. Such ground can be raised provided it falls within the contours of the subject matter of the appeal. 38. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar under consideration, and whether the interest claim of ₹ 2,55,233/- is tax free or not. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to allow the claim, in the aforesaid terms. 6. The next ground relates to the disallowance of deduction of ₹ 20,24,842/- on account of bad debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed the bad debts written off of ₹ 20,24,842/- on the ground that the amount of deduction claimed and allowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act for bad and doubtful debts of ₹ 38,00,870/- is more than the bad debts claimed and also on the ground that the bad debts claimed pertained to the period when the appellant claimed deduction under section 80P of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also upheld the addition holding that the claim for deduction of bad debts were not allowable as the same is over and above the limits specified under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced as under: Section 36(1) (vii): subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner: Provided that a scheduled bank or a non-scheduled bank referred to in this sub-clause shall, at its option, be allowed in any of the relevant assessment years, deduction in respect of any provision made by it for any assets classified by the Reserve Bank of India as doubtful assets or loss assets in accordance with the guidelines issued by it in this behalf, for an amount not exceeding five per cent of the amount of such assets shown in the books of account of the bank on the last day of the previous year: Provided further that for the relevant assessment years commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2003 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2005, the provisions of the first proviso shall have effect as if for the words five per cent , the words ten per cent had been substituted: Provided also that a scheduled bank or a non-scheduled bank referred to in this sub-clause shall, at its option, be allowed a further deduction in excess of the limits specified in the foregoing provisions, for an amount not exceeding the income derived from redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959), a corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), or under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980), or any other bank being a bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934); (iii) public financial institution shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) State financial corporation means a financial corporation established under section 3 or section 3A or an institution notified under section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951); (v) State industrial investment corporation means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), engaged in the business of providing long-term finance for industrial projects and eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of this sub-section; (vi) co-operative bank , primary agricultural credit society and primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ually written off in the books of account and in the light of the fact that the provisions for bad debts was not claimed in the earlier years which goes to prove that the claim is not hit by the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the bad debts claimed to ₹ 20,24,842/-. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed. 7. The next ground relates to the addition of ₹ 7,03,654/- on account of alleged difference between the interest income declared by the appellant and the Form No. 26AS of the Department. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 7,06,654/- on the ground that there was a difference in the interest income earned by the appellant from ICICI Bank, Vijaya Bank and HDFC Bank, as per the information contained in Form No. 26AS. The coordinate bench of the ITAT, Delhi in ITA No. 4679/Del/2012, for AY 2009-10, dated 31st March, 2015, held vide para 6 of the order that the information contained in Form No. 26AS cannot be itself the basis for making addition to the income returned. To the same effect, the decision of a coordinate bench of ITAT, Jabalpur, in the case of Ravindra Pratap Thareja Vs. ITO, 154 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
