United Bank of India, Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1065/KOL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 106523514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMITR A CHOUDHURY
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Benefit of exemption; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998, 1998-199 9 & 1999-2000 PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL/ 2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1997-1998, 1998-1999 & 1999-2000 UNITED BANK OF INDIA,.............................. ......................,......APPELLANT 16, OLD COURT HOUSE STREET, KOLKATA-700 001 [PAN : AAACO 5624 P] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ............RESPONDENT CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI VARINDER MEHTA, CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 11, 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 12, 2014 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN: ITA 1065/KOL/2009 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V I, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 173/CIT(A)-VI/06-07/CIR-6 DATED 30.03.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED A ND ILLEGAL. (2) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN NOT DELETING APPRECIATION ON INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.41,16,85,000/- BY DITTOING THE ORDE R OF I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998, 1998-199 9 & 1999-2000 PAGE 2 OF 10 THE AO WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE WH ICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. (3) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION ON APPRECIATION OF INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.41,16,85,000/- WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE I N ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988-89 AND 1991-92 WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. (4) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE FROM OTHER EXPENSES ON AD HOC BASIS @ 5% ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT O F RS.1,45,84,000/- WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. 2. ITA 1066/KOL/2009 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-VI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 177/CIT(A)-VI/06-07/CIR-6 DATED 30.03.20 09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED A ND ILLEGAL. (2) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN NOT DELETING APPRECIATION ON INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.11,25,42,000/- BY DITTOING THE ORDE R OF THE AO WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE WH ICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. (3) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION ON APPRECIATION OF INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.11,25,42,000/- WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE I N ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988-89 AND 1991-92 WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. (4) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE FROM OTHER EXPENSES ON AD HOC BASIS @ 5% ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT O F RS.1,45,89,000/- WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. (5) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF DIVIDEND INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.2,40,25,342/- WHICH IS EXEMPT U/S 10(33) OF THE I.T. ACT AS THE SAID DIVIDENDS WERE D ECLARED AND PAID AFTER 01.06.1997 BY DIFFERENT COMPANIES, I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998, 1998-199 9 & 1999-2000 PAGE 3 OF 10 THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS COM PLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. (6) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN NOT ALLOWING BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF U/S 36(1)(VII) AMOUNTING TO RS.11,50,48,535/- WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. (7) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THESE BAD DE BTS CLAIM U/S 36(1)(VII) AMOUNTING TO RS.11,50,48,535/- DOES NOT RELATE TO RURAL BRANCHES, THEREFORE, SHOULD HAV E BEEN ALLOWED U/S. 36(1)(VII) WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL I NCOME, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. 3. ITA 1067/KOL/2009 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-VI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 176/CIT(A)-VI/06-07/CIR-6 DATED 31.03.20 09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED A ND ILLEGAL. (2) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE FROM OTHER EXPENSES ON AD HOC BASIS @ 5% ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT O F RS.2,35,00,000/- WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. (3) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF DIVIDEND INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.7,69,14,033/- WHICH IS EXEMPT U/S 10(33) OF THE I.T. ACT AS THE SAID DIVIDENDS WERE D ECLARED AND PAID AFTER 01.06.1997 BY DIFFERENT COMPANIES, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS COM PLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. (4) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN NOT ALLOWING BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF U/S 36(1)(VII) AMOUNTING TO RS.3,64,51,714/- WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. (5) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WAS WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THESE BAD DE BTS CLAIM U/S 36(1)(VII) AMOUNTING TO RS.3,64,51,714/- DOES NOT RELATE TO RURAL BRANCHES, THEREFORE, SHOULD HAV E BEEN ALLOWED U/S. 36(1)(VII) WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL I NCOME, I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998, 1998-199 9 & 1999-2000 PAGE 4 OF 10 THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. 4. SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE, REPRESENTED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI VARINDER MEHTA, CIT, D.R., REPRES ENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 5. ITA 1065/KOL/2009 IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAIN ST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN NOT DELETING THE NOTIONAL APPRECIAT ION ON INVESTMENT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LD. A.R. THAT SIMILAR ISS UE HAD COME UP FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988-89 AND 1991-92, WHEREIN THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED PETITION UNDER SECTION 264 AND THE LD. CIT, WEST BE NGAL-III, KOLKATA HAD VIDE AN ORDER DATED 30.03.2001 DIRECTED THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK REPORTED IN 240 ITR 355 (SC) I N RESPECT OF THE VALUATION OF THE GOVERNMENT SECURITIES AND SHARES O F PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES. LD. A.R. FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO T HE ORDER GIVING EFFECT UNDER SECTION 264 WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PERMITTED THE WRITE BACK OF THE NOTIONAL APPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF S HARES AND SECURITIES IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK REFERRED TO SUPRA. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLO WING THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK REFERRED TO SUPRA. 6. IN REPLY, LD. CIT, D.R. VEHEMENTLY RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NO TICED THAT THE ISSUE OF THE NOTIONAL APPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF INVEST MENT IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F UCO BANK REPORTED I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998, 1998-199 9 & 1999-2000 PAGE 5 OF 10 IN 240 ITR 355 (SC) REFERRED TO SUPRA, THIS ISSUE I S RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION AFTER TAK ING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK REFERRED TO SUPRA. 8. IN THE RESULT, GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 4, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE FROM OTHER EXPENSES ON AD HOC BASIS @ 5%. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE AN A D HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OUT OF THE OTHER EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE WAS A BUSINESS EXPEN DITURE OR NOT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT SC HEDULED BANK. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO PER SONAL EXPENDITURE NOR ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN BOOKED IN THE OTHE R EXPENSES. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS M ENTIONED THAT THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES ARE NOT BEING PROVIDED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DETAILS HAD BEEN PRODUCED. LD. A.R. DREW OUR AT TENTION TO THE BREAK- UP OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAG ES 53 & 54. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD REDUCED TH E AD HOC DISALLOWANCE TO 5%. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO AD HOC DISALLO WANCE WAS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN REPLY, LD. CIT, D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SCHEDULED BANK AND THERE IS NO COMMEN T IN RESPECT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE BY EITHER OF THE STATUTORY AUDITOR OR THE AUDIT REPORT OR HAS ANY ISSUE BEEN RAISED BY THE RBI. IT IS ALSO NO TICED THAT THE ACCOUNTS I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998, 1998-199 9 & 1999-2000 PAGE 6 OF 10 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO AUDITED BY THE GOVERNMENT AUDITORS, WHO HAVE ALSO NOT RAISED ANY ISSUES ON THE ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO DEFECT IN THE DETAILS PRODUCED HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 5% IS CALLED FOR IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION AS RESTRICTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) STAN DS DELETED. 12. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. I.T.A. NO. 1066/KOL/2009 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 WERE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1065/KOL/2009. AS WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED THIS ISS UE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION ON SIMILAR LI NES AS DECIDED IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL I N ITA NO. 1065/KOL/2009, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION AS IN GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 IN I TA NO. 1065/KOL/2009. CONSEQUENTLY GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 4, IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ISSUE WAS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA 1065/KOL/2009. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION RESTRICTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AT 5% IS DELETED ON SIMILAR LINES AS IN GROUND NO. 4 O F THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1065/KOL/2009. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, G ROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998, 1998-199 9 & 1999-2000 PAGE 7 OF 10 16. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 5, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH WAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(33) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE D IVIDEND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO T PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DIVIDENDS WERE DECLARED A FTER 31.05.1997. ON SIMILAR GROUND, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 17. LD. A.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 2 OF THE PA PER BOOK WHEREIN THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND THE DATE OF DECLARATION OF THE DIVIDENDS WERE SHOWN. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THESE DETAILS WERE BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DISALLOWANC E OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DIVIDEND MAY BE REVERSED. 18. IN REPLY, LD. CIT, D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHOWS TH AT THE CLAIM OF DIVIDEND BEING EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(33) OF THE A CT HAS BEEN DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE CONCERNED COMPA NY AFTER 31.05.1997. A PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF DIVIDEND EARNED DURING THE YEAR 1997-98 AS FOUND IN PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE DIVIDEND, IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(33), HAS BEEN DECLARED MUCH AFTER 31.05. 1997. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME UNDER SEC TION 10(33) OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(33) OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED. I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998, 1998-199 9 & 1999-2000 PAGE 8 OF 10 20. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 21. IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS NO. 6 & 7, IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS UNDER SECTION 3 6(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE WAS SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NOS. 346/KOL/2012, 6 05/KOL/2012 DATED 19.06.2013, WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 1497 & 1498/KOL/2009 DATED 14.02.2 013 HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF THE WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINA TE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII). IN THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, GROUNDS NO. 6 & 7 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STAND AL LOWED. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23. ITA NO. 1067/KOL/2009 IN REGARD TO GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPAL IN ITA NO. 1065/KOL/2009. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS WE HA VE ALREADY DELETED THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 5% FROM OTHER EXPENSES I N THE EARLIER YEARS, ON IDENTICAL GROUND THE DISALLOWANCE AS RESTRICTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR THIS YEAR ALSO STANDS DELETED. CONSEQUENTLY GRO UND NO. 2 STANDS ALLOWED. I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998, 1998-199 9 & 1999-2000 PAGE 9 OF 10 24. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 3, IT WAS THE SUBMISSI ON THAT THE ISSUE WAS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1066/KOL/2009. AS WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(33) OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME AS THE DIVIDEND HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE COMPANY AFTER 31.05.1997, ON IDENTICAL GROUND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE ASSESESE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(33) FOR THIS YE AR ALSO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEA L STANDS ALLOWED. 25. IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5, IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ISSUE WAS IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS NO. 6 & 7 OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL IN ITA NO. 1066/KOL/2009. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT WE HAVE ALREAD Y HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED THE BENEFIT OF BAD DEBTS WRITT EN OFF UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) IN THE GROUNDS 6 & 7 OF THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL IN ITA NO. 1066/KOL/2009, ON SIMILAR GROUNDS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OF F FOR THIS YEAR ALSO. CONSEQUENTLY GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL STAND ALLOWED. 26. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N OS. 1065 & 1066/KOL/2009 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1067/KOL/2009 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA GEORGE MATHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JU DICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 12 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 I.T.A. NOS. 1065, 1066 & 1067/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-1998, 1998-199 9 & 1999-2000 PAGE 10 OF 10 COPIES TO : (1) UNITED BANK OF INDIA, 16, OLD COURT HOUSE STREET, KOLKATA-700 001 (2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.