9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essors, we hereby direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and found to be correct, allow the same without giving importance to the nomenclature of the account under which head such claim towards provision for bad & doubtful debts is made. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes - ITA No. 1217/Mds./2015 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2015 - N. R. S. Ganesan, JM And A. Mohan Alankamony, AM For the Appellant : Mr R Vijayaraghavan, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Jayaram Raipura, CIT-DR ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the Assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btful debts. Provision for Overdue interest : ₹ 4,64,50,128/- Reserve for NPA : ₹ 68,20,002/- Reserve for Loan to PACB imbalances : Rs.13,30,06,621/- 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated that the provision for overdue interest represents interest on doubtful category advances which was unrealized but taken into account on accrual basis. Hence provision was made for overdue interest doubtful of recovery and hence is a provision for bad and doubtful debt. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated that reserve for NPA represents provision for b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax ought to have appreciated that scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) was completed after considering the books of accounts, details produced and revised return of income wherein assessee has restricted the deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) to 10% of average advances granted by its Rural branches as against gross advances. Hence the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 13. Appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative bank, engaged in the business of baking, filed its of return of income on 28.10.2007 admitting its loss at ₹ 17,81,64,980/- for A.Y 2007-08 after claiming deduction u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issue. 3. In the circumstances, the order passed dated 22/06/2012 is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, and therefore it is proposed to rectify the same u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the facts and circumstances of the case deem it fit. Hence, your are hereby given an opportunity to file your written submission/objections or personally appear before the under signed through your authorized representative, if any, on the issue mentioned above on 23/1/2015 at 11.30 a.m. in my office at the address given above, for this purpose. It will be presumed that there is no objection to the proposed revision if there is not compliance on the date of hearing, and revision will be effected. Thereafter the Ld. CIT passed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Provisions towards bad doubtful debts . It was further submitted by the Ld. A.R. that the nomenclature under which the head the provision made is not important for the purpose of claiming deduction U/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. Therefore, it was argued by the Ld. A.R. that the order of ld. CIT may be modified to the extent of directing the Ld. Assessing Officer to verify the claim made under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act by the assessee and if found to comply with the provisions of the Act, then allow the same as deduction without giving importance to the head under which such provision is made. Ld. D.R also magnanimously agreed for such verification. We find merit in the contention of the Ld. A.R. On the earlier occasion, the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
