9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iding long term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purpose. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been examined by the tribunal while dealing with the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The assessee had classified certain advances as Non Performing Asset in accordance with the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The income by way of interest in respect of the said account is not recognized as income till it is actually accrued to the assessee. The tribunal while deciding the aforesaid issue failed to take into account the law laid down by this court in Canfin Homes Ltd supra, which is binding on it. The tribunal has also not dealt with the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Tribunal was justified in law in not following the binding decision of the Jurisdictional high court in the case of the Canfin Homes Ltd 347 ITR 382 and Siddeshwar Co-Operative Bank Ltd 388 ITR 588 on the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in adjudicating certain issues which were not before it and not adjudicating certain grounds which were urged and noticed in the body of its order on the facts and circumstances of the case . 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a co-operative bank registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co operative Societies Act, 1959 and is engaged in the business of banking. The assessee filed its return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orming Assets (NPA) cannot be recognized as income till it is actually received. It is contended that the tribunal erred in adjudicating the issues, which were not before it and not adjudicating certain grounds, which were urged. It is pointed out that grounds No.16 to 20 in the memo of appeal have not been adjudicated by the tribunal, which has resulted in severe prejudice to the assessee. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. VS. CIT', (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC), 'CIT VS. CANFIN HOMES LTD', (2012) 347 ITR 382 (KAR), 'CIT VS. VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD', (2011) 330 ITR 440 and 'CIT VS. VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD', (2019) 410 ITR 244 (SC). 5. On the othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Reserve Bank of India. The income by way of interest in respect of the said account is not recognized as income till it is actually accrued to the assessee. The tribunal while deciding the aforesaid issue failed to take into account the law laid down by this court in Canfin Homes Ltd supra, which is binding on it. The tribunal has also not dealt with the grounds raised by the assessee in memo of appeal in ground Nos.16 to 20. For the aforementioned reasons, the order passed by the tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law, the same is quashed. It is made clear that the tribunal shall decide the claim of the assessee with regard to deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act afresh. The matter is remitted to the tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
