DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI V. BANK OF BARODA, MUMBAI

ITA 1069/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 106919914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BE NCH, MUMBAI .. , . ... , BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND DR S.T.M.PAVALAN , JM ITA NOS.1069 &1070 /MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 & 2003-04) DCIT 2(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, R.NO.561, 5 TH FLOOR, M.K. RD. MUMBAI 400020 / VS. BANK OF BARODA BARDOA CORPORATE CENTRE. C-26,G-BLOCK BANDAR-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(E) MUMBAI 400051 ! . / PAN : AAACB1534F (APPLICANT) .. RESPONDENT ) DEPARTMENT B Y : SHRI K.C.P.PATNAIK(DR) ASSESSEE B Y : SHRI C.NARESH ' # $ % / DATE OF HEARING : 16-09-2013 &'() $ % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31- 10-2013 *+ / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : THESE TWO APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) IV MUMBAI DATED 03.11.2010 AND 23.11.2010 FOR A.Y. 1998-99 AND A.Y. 2003-04 INVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE AN D THE SAME THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 1998-99. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL ARE TH AT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y.1998-99, THE FOLLOWING DEDUCTIONS, INTER ALIA, WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE:- 1. PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS RS.288.63, 47,000/- 2. AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF OUT OF CONTINGENCY I.E. OUT O F PAST PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS. RS.78,01,95,000/- ITA NO.1069&1070/MUM/2011 2 3. AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF BALANCE OF GL CONTINGENCY IN RESPECT OF INTEREST SUSPENSE ON FOREIGN BRANCHES RS.11,80,04,000/- 4. DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VIIA) RS.31,10,10,000/-. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143(3) VIDE ORDE R DATED 26.02.2001, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.36(1)(VIIA) A MOUNTING TO RS.31,10,10,10,000/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND T HE REMAINING THREE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGREGATING TO R S.378,45,46,000/- WERE ALLOWED. SUBSEQUENTLY, AO ENTERTAINED A BELIEF THAT THE SAID DEDUCTIONS WERE WRONGLY ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143 (3) AS, ACCORDING TO HIM, DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS WAS ALLOWABLE ONL Y TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHA TEVER WAS PROVIDED IN THE RBI GUIDELINES ON THIS ASPECT. HE, THEREFORE, REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 1998- 99 AND ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.148. DUR ING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE NOTICED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA), BANKING COMPANIES WERE ALLOWED A PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS AT 5% ON GROSS TOTAL INCOME AS INCREASED BY A SUM EQUAL TO 10% OF RURAL ADVANCES, SUBJECT TO CREATION OF ACTUAL PROVISION BY THE ASSESSEE TO THAT EXTENT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SHOULD HAVE ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF THE RELEVANT DEBT S AS BAD IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE BANK WAS FOLLOWING STANDARD DOU BLE ENTRY SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, HE HELD THAT THE WRITTEN OFF COULD BE C OMPLETE ONLY WHEN DEBTOR ACCOUNTS ARE CREDITED WITH A CORRESPONDING DEBIT I N THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OR THE RELEVANT PROVISION ACCOUNT. SINCE, IT WAS NOT D ONE BY THE ASSESSEE, HE HELD THAT THE DEDUCTIONS AGGREGATING THE RS.378,45,46,00 0/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PROVISION MADE FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT S WERE NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE REASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143( 3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 09.01.2004. ITA NO.1069&1070/MUM/2011 3 4. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S.143(3) RE AD WITH SECTION 147, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEA RNED CIT(A) AND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE THAT THE AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS HAVING BEEN ACTUALLY WRITTEN OF F IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED:- THE A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING RS.378,45,46,000/- BEING BAD DEBT CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TILL A.Y. 1994-95, BANK OF BARODA WAS GETTING DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. FROM A.Y.1995-96, THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) HAS BEEN DELETED AND THE APPELLANT GOT THE DEDUCTION U/ S.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE INCOME-TAX IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. THE ENCLOSED STATEMENT THEREFORE, SHOWED THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFU L DEBTS FROM A.Y.1995-96 ONWARDS AS UNDER: A.Y. 1995-96: THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BANK WH ERE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) ARE APPLICABLE: (RS. IN CRORES) PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS MADE U/S.36(1)(VIIA) 134 LESS : BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF 314 C/F PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS NIL A.Y.1996-97: (RS. IN CRORES) OPENING BALANCE OF PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1 )(VIIA) NIL PROVISION MADE DURING THE YEAR 160 LESS: WRITTEN OFF 158.85 BALANCE 1.15 ITA NO.1069&1070/MUM/2011 4 A.Y.1997-98 (RS. IN CRORES) OPENING PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VIIA) 1.15 ADD: PROVISION MADE DURING THE YEAR 227.00 228.15 LESS: UTILIZED TOWARDS WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS 131.22 CLOSING BALANCE OF PROVISION U/S.36(1)(VIIA) 96.93 A.Y.1998-99: (RS. IN CRORES) OPENING PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VIIA) 96.93 LESS: WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS DURING THE YEAR 97.00 NIL ADD: ACTUAL WRITE OFF U/S. 36(1)(VII) 378.00 ALLOWABLE U/S.36(1)(VII) 378.00 BALANCE PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VIIA) NIL FROM THIS STATEMENT IT WOULD BE NOTICE THAT IN A.Y. 1998-99, OPENING PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VIIA) WAS OF R S. 97 CRORE AND OUT OF THE PRUDENTIAL WRITE OFF, THE APPELLANT HAS TRANSFERRED RS.97 CRORE TO THIS PROVISION ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OPENING BALANC E LEFT IN THE SAID PROVISION ACCOUNT. THE ACTUAL WRITE OFF U/S. 36(1)(VII) OF RS .378 CRORE IS, THEREFORE, AVAILABLE AS BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VII) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT 1961. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, THE LEARNED CIT(A ) FOUND THAT THE OPENING PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AT THE END OF A.Y. 1997-98 WAS RS.96.93 CRORES ONLY AND THE ASSESSEE BANK HAD ALREADY ADJUS TED RS.97 CRORES AGAINST THIS ITA NO.1069&1070/MUM/2011 5 PROVISION THE BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. H E HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF ACTUAL WRITTEN OFF OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING RS.378 CRORES WHICH WAS OVER AND ABOVE TH E PROVISION MADE FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. VS. C IT[323 ITR 397 (SC)] AND VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT[323 ITR 167 (SC)]. HE ALSO RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2000-01, W HEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT DEDUCTIONS U/S.36(1)(VII) AND SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) A RE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE PROVISION MADE IN RESPECT OF URBAN AND RURAL ADVANCES HAVE GOT DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT CHARACTER. AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS 1,2 &3. 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE. 2 .ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS IN CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE CLA IM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.36(1)(VIIA) AS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VII) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING EXCESS RELIEF OF RS.121.41 CRORES BY CONSIDERING THE SAME AS CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VII) AS AGAINST THE PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS AGREED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE S OF BOTH THE SIDES, GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS GENERAL SEEKING NO SPECIFIC DECISION FROM US. THEY HAVE ALSO AGREED THAT THE ISSUE RAISE D IN GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES, APPEAL DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.1069&1070/MUM/2011 6 7. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.2, IT I S OBSERVED THAT THE YEAR WISE DETAILS OF PROVISIONS MADE U/S.36(1)(VIIA) FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 1995-96 TO 1998-99 CLEARLY REVEALED THAT THE OPENING PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VIIA) FOR A.Y. 19 98-99 WAS ONLY RS.96.93 CRORES AND THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF DURING THAT YEAR TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.97 CRORES WERE ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID PROVISION . THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.378 CRORES ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCO UNT OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS THUS WAS OVER AND ABOVE THE OPENING PROVISION OF BA D DEBTS MADE U/S.36(1)(VIIA) AND THE SAME, THEREFORE WAS ALLOWABLE U/S. 36(1)(VI I) AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD.(SUPRA) AND VIJAYA BANK (SUPRA). AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY INFIR MITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND HAS SIMPLY RELIED ON THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) AND 36(1)( VIIA) WAS EXPLAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2000-01 AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL A S RELEVANT FACTS AND FIGURE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THAT THE BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING RS.378 CRORES ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF WERE EXCEEDING T HE OPENING PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS MADE U/S. 36(1)(VIIA), THE DEDUCTION OF THE S AID AMOUNT WAS ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) U/S. 36(1)(VII) RELYING ON THE DECIS IONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD.(SUPRA) AND VIJAYA BAN K (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNE D ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND UPH ELD BY THE SAME WE DISMISS GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y.1998-99 . 8. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2003-04. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO THIS APPE AL ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINAL COMPLETED U/S.143(3) ON 03.03.2005, DEDUCT ION OF RS.196,84,48,266/- ITA NO.1069&1070/MUM/2011 7 WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO U/S.36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAID ORDER WAS RECTIFIED BY THE AO U/S.154 AND AFTER CORRECTING CERTAIN ARITHMETICAL MISTAKES, HE RESTRI CTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VII) TO RS.66,27,15,913/-. THER EAFTER THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VIIA) IN A .Y.2002-03 AMOUNTING TO RS.333,66,56,556/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND SINCE THERE WAS NO DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S.36(1)(VII) IN R ESPECT OF BAD DEBTS IN THAT YEAR, HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ALLOWED U/S.36(1)(VIIA) WAS AVAILABLE, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BE EN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS ALLOWABLE U/S.36(1) (VII) FOR A.Y.2003-04. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 66,27,15,913 /- THERE WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.36(1)(VII) AND HE THEREFORE REO PENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y.2003-04 IN ORDER TO WITHDRAW THE SAID DEDUCTION . CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) READ WITH 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORD ER DATED 22.12.2008, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VII) AMOUNTING TO RS.66,27,15,913/- AND T HE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S.143(3) READ W ITH SECTION 147 AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 8 AND 9 OF HIS IMPUGNED OR DER WHICH READ AS UNDER: 8. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A. R. I FIND THAT THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THE ISSUE VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.17 /2008 DATED 26/11/2008 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED AS UNDER; (I) UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT, DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WHICH ARE WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADMISSIBLE. HOWEVER, THIS SHOULD BE ALL OWED ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEBTS TO TH E PROVISION FOR ITA NO.1069&1070/MUM/2011 8 BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ACCOUNT CREATED U/S.36(1)(VI IA) OF THE ACT, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 36(2)(V) OF THE ACT. WHILE CONS IDERING THE CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS U/S. 36(1)(VII), THE A.O. SHOULD ALLO W ONLY SUCH AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF AS EXCEEDS THE CREDIT BALA NCE AVAILABLE IN THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS CREATED U/ S.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. THE CREDIT BALANCE FOR THIS PURPOSE WILL B E THE OPENING CREDIT BALANCE I.E. THE BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD AS ON 1 ST APRIL OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR. 9. ACCORDINGLY I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE AP PELLANT THAT WHILE ALLOWING BAD DEBT U/S.36(1)(VII) IN RESPECT OF BAN K AS REFERENCE HAS TO BE MADE TO SECTION 36(2)(V) WHICH PROVIDES THAT IN RESPECT OF BANK THE BAD DEBT ALLOWABLE SHOULD BE EXCESS OF PROVISIO N MADE U/S.36(1)(VIIA). HOWEVER, THE REFERENCE TO PROVISIO N IS IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IN LAST YEAR W HICH WOULD BE THE OPENING BALANCE IN THIS YEAR. THIS YEARS PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IS ALLOWED AS A SEPARATE DEDUCTION. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BAD DEBTS OF RS.434,17,95,000/ - WHICH IS MORE THAT THE OPENING PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEB TS OF RS.333,66,56,556/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTI TLED TO CLAIM BAD DEBT IN EXCESS OF THE PROVISION MADE IN EARLIER YEA R AMOUNTING TO RS.100,51,38,444/- U/S.36(1)(VII). THE A.O. IS DIRE CTED TO VERIFY AND ALLOW BAD DEBT OF RS.100,51,38,444/-. THIS GROUND O F APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TH E REVENUE HAS PREFERRED ITS APPEAL FOR A.Y.2003-04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1.THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FA CTS OF THE CASE. 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS IN CONSIDERING THE OPENING PR OVISION OF BAD AND ITA NO.1069&1070/MUM/2011 9 DOUBTFUL DEBTS AT RS.333,66,56,556/- WHEREAS THE SA ME AS PER RECORDS IS ONLY RS.3,41,11,71,950/-. 3.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING EXCESS RELIEF OF RS.7,45,15,394/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.341,11,71,950/- AND RS.333,66,56,556/- ON ACCOUN T OF BAD DEBT U/S.36(1)(VII) OF THE I.T. ACT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE LIMITED GRI EVANCE OF THE REVENUE AS PROJECTED IN THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS T HAT OPENING PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS HAS BEEN WRONGLY TAKEN BY THE LE ARNED CIT(A) AT RS. 333,66,56,556/- AS AGAINST RS.3,41,11,71,950/- RES ULTING IN ALLOWING EXCESS RELIEF OF RS.7,45,15,394 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARDS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US THE RELEVAN T DETAILS OF PROVISION MADE FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VIIA) RIGHT FROM A .Y.1998-99 TO 2003-04 WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THAT WITH THE OPENING PROVISION MADE U /S.36(1)(VIIA) FOR A.Y.2003- 04 WAS RS. 333.66 CRORES AS RIGHTLY TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND NOT 341.11 CRORES AS MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS TAKEN OF THE REV ENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE LEARNED DR HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANYT HING ON THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE OPENING PROVISION U/S.36(1)(VIIA) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E., A.Y.2003-04 WAS RS.341.11 CRORES AND NOT RS.333.66 CRORES AS TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. ITA NO.1069&1070/MUM/2011 10 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS BY THE REVE NUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OCTOBER 2013 . *+ $ &'() ' , - !. 31 ST OCTOBER 2013 ' $ # SD/- SD/- (S.T.M.PAVALAN) ( P.M. JAGTAP ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' !5# MUMBAI ; DATED 31 ST OCTOBER 2013 .../ A.K.PATEL , PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 6 7 / THE APPELLANT 2. 89 7 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. *% * ' : (6 ) / THE CIT(A)- MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. *% * ' : / CIT MUMBAI CONCERNED 5. => 8?@ , *% 6 6?@%) , ' !5# / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI D BENCH 6. A B # / GUARD FILE. ! ( / BY ORDER, 9 = 8 //TRUE COPY// )/(* + ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' !5# / ITAT, MUMBAI