9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263. In this case, applying the above principle of law, it is held that assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence the order under section 263 is bad in law. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Percy Pardiwala Ms.Vasanti B.Patel AR s For the Revenue : Shri Keyur Patel CIT(DR) ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by ld.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-3 on 14.03.2023. In this case, assessment order was passed on 26.02.2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging the validity of revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act 1.1. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (hereinafter referred to as learned AO) under section 143(3) of the Act was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law. Brief facts of the case : 2. The assessee is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and stated to be engaged in the business of providing housing loans and loans for purchase, construction renovation of homes/commercial spaces etc. Assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 on 29.03.2019, declaring total income of Rs. 37,01,62,310/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny to examine the issues of Claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP, Refund claim, Expenses incurred for earning exempt income and Share capital/other capital. The Assessment Order was passed on 26.02.2021. Subsequently, the assessment record was called for by ld.Pr.CIT and examined in this case. On examination, it was seen that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 14,99,96,000/- as provision for standa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had submitted all the details to the AO. The ld.AR invited our attention to the page no.201 to 220 of the paper book which was copy of notice and assessee s reply. Ld.AR hence submitted that AO had arrived at the conclusion after studying the details. The ld.AR also submitted that there are two views on this issue. ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Vikramaditya NagrikSahkari Bank Maryadit Vs. ACIT in ITA No.36/IND/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 has held as under : 7 . We, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are of the opinion that in the instant appeal the contingency provision for standard assets is basically in the nature of bad and doubtful debts only and the assessee has rightly claimed the expenditure u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. We, therefore, allow the sole ground raised by the assessee. 3.1 ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.3267 to 3269/MUM/2019 has held as under : 9 . Therefore, following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction of the assessee under section 36(1)(viia) in respect of standard assets. 3.2 And also ITAT Amr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08-09(supra), had held that deduction under section 36(1)(viia) is allowable for provision for standard assets which is basically in the nature of bad doubtful debts. 6.2 Before we discuss the case further, we will like to mentions the relevant case laws on this issue. 6.3 The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200(SC) observed as under : 21. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where two views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from. 6.4 The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. 294 ITR 121 (Madras) held as under : Quote, 8. Therefore, on the facts of the case, when two views are possible and it is not the case of the Revenue that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
