9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent view in the matter for the present Assessment years, in this case. - Decided in favour of assessee. Provision made in the earlier years in respect of Non Performing Assets which was reversed during the current assessment year - HELD THAT:- What is required to be seen is, for the assessment years under consideration, whether the provisions were allowed as deduction in the respective assessment years. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer on this aspect. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer, who will take a fresh decision on the merits of this issue. In the result, this appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even though the provisions were not allowed as deductions in the respective assessment years? 3. We have heard Mr.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/revenue. 4. It is agreed by the learned counsels on either side that substantial question of law no.1, as framed above, was answered in favour of the assesee in the assessee's own case vide judgment dated 05.03.2019. The Division Bench took note of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd . reported in [(2013) 213 Taxman 0204] , the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shri Chakra Financial Services Ltd. Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. Since, for the previous assessment years, this Court has already approved such bifurcation of income and has held that interest income (Finance charges) on consistently adopted basis of E.M.I. would be taxable in the hands of the Assessee, the mere change of Accounting method in its Book of Accounts on the basis of S.O.D. does not alter the position in the tax in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the Judgement of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sri Chakra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2013) 350 ITR 398] is distinguishable. 7. On the other hand, since in the case of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., (supra) the Coordinate Bench of this Court has upheld the taxability with regard to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) in paragraph 4.7.1 in order dated 13.01.2005, before the Tribunal, the assessee did not specifically canvassed the issue as canvassed before us to contend that the CIT(A) erred in not giving a direction to the Assessing Officer to follow consistent stand taken in the assessment for the earlier years in respect of the provision for non-performing assets. As noticed above, before the Tribunal, it appears that the assessee made a submission that the issue is covered by the decision in the case of Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (supra). It cannot be denied that the said decision will have no application to the facts of the case. 7. Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the earlier years was allowed as deduction in the respective assessment year. 10. Such verification exercise was never done in the assessee's case for the year under consideration. If it is so, whether it would be substantial question of law for consideration, on this aspect, we are guided by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Narayanan Chettiar Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in [(2005) 277 ITR 0426] . The question was whether the amount in question can be added as income in the hands of the assessee under Section 41(1) of the Act. It was held that the revenue can add a sum to the assessee's income under Section 41(1) only if it can prove that the allowance or deduction has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
