9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent of ₹ 63.23 crores and since the Assessing Officer has already allowed the claim of deduction of ₹ 21.30 crores, there was no ground for addition of balance of ₹ 41.93 crores u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by the Revenue. - Decided against revenue. - ITA Nos. 2065 & 2066/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2021 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Atul Ninawat, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gautam, CIT(DR) ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : Both the present appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. CIT(A) is correct in law in holding that the creating of reserve for loan assets amounts to creating of actual provision for doubtful debts and qualifies for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 5. AO noticed that assessee had claimed deduction of ₹ 23,06,26,073/- u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act for the provisions for bad and doubtful debts . He noticed that assessee had not created any such provision in the books of account. Assessee was therefore asked to explain as to why the claim of deduction should not be disallowed. Assessee inter alia submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e copy of the financial statements which are placed in the paper book that assessee had indeed created provision for bad and doubtful debts though the nomenclature used was Reserve for bad and doubtful debts . He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The AO had denied the claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act for the reason that according to him assessee has not created any provision for bad and doubtful debts in the books of accounts. We however, find that CIT(A), while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, has given a categorical finding that assessee had created a provision in the books of account of bad and doubtful debts but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accordingly denied the claim of the deduction of ₹ 41,93,21,447/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has given a finding that the total provision on bad and doubtful debts created in the books of accounts amounted to ₹ 212.81 crores(191.51 crores + 21.30 crores), whereas the deduction claimed by the assessee in the return of income amounted to only ₹ 63.23 crores. It was, therefore, held that there was no ground for addition u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. She accordingly deleted the addition of ₹ 41,93,21,447/-. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 11. Before us, Learned DR supported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
