M/s Corporate Bank , Mangalore V. Principal Commissioner of Income TAx , Mangalore

ITA 1679/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8333 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Bad and doubtful debts; Set aside
• Section: 263; 10; 143(3); 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM and Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1679/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Central Accounts Department 6 th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021. PAN : AAACU0564G. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.S.Ananthan, CA Respondent by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order dated 28.03.2018 passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2014-2015. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a Public Sector Bank. For the assessment year 2014-2015, the return of income was filed on 27.09.2014 declaring total income at `Nil’. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 26.02.2016 determining total income of Rs.2887,11,00,164. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Issued notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act proposing to revise the order u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act passed on 26.02.2016. According to the CIT, the ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 2 assessment order dated 26.02.2016 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as there was failure on the part of the A.O. in not taking into cognizance the following, while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act :- (i) Depreciation on investment portfolio of Rs.3028.32 crore disallowed in the regular computation. (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.58.58 crore made in the regular computation. (iii) Provision for Non Performing Assets of Rs.1438.11 crore. 3. The assessee-bank filed written submission, objecting to the proposed revision u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The Pr.CIT, however, rejected the objections of the assessee and passed order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act on 28.03.2018 by setting aside the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act. The CIT directed the A.O. to redo the assessment afresh after making detailed examination of the relevant facts relating to the aforesaid issues for the purpose of computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as follow:- “1. The order of the learned Pro Commissioner of Income Tax is against law and facts of the case. 2. The learned Pro Commissioner of Income Tax erred in revising the assessment u/s 263. 2.1. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax failed to ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 3 appreciate the fact that there was no error in the order of the learned Assessing Officer. 2.2. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate the fact that the learned Assessing Officer had adopted one of the possible views. 3. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in directing the learned Assessing Officer to re do the Assessment with regard to Investment depreciation. 3.1. The learned Pro Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate the fact that the Investment depreciation is a loss and as such not covered by any of the items of the Explanation to Section 115JB(2). 4. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in directing the learned Assessing Officer to re do the Assessment with regard to Disallowance u/s 14A. 4.1. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate the fact that no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in respect of stock in trade. 4.2. The learned Pro Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate the fact that no addition can be made to Book Profit in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A. 5. The learned Pro Commissioner of Income Tax erred in directing the learned Assessing Officer to re do the Assessment with regard to Provision for Non Performing Advances. 5.1. The learned Pro Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate the fact that the Provision for Non Performing Advances is write off and as such not covered by any of the items of the Explanation to Section 115JB(2) For all these and other grounds, which may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant pray that its appeal be allowed.” 5. Ground 1 is general in nature and no adjudication is called for, hence, the same is dismissed. In ground 2, the assessee raised the issue that the CIT has erred in revising the assessment by invoking the powers u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 4 As regards grounds 3, 4 and 5 on merits, the learned AR submitted that the issues are covered in favour of the assessee by the following judicial pronouncements:- Depreciation on investments (ground 3) (i) Pr.CIT v. Torrent Private Limited 2019 (6) TMI 709 Gujarat High Court (ii) Reliance Welfare Association Circle 2018(1) TMI 885 – ITAT Mumbai. Disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act (ground 4) (i) Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd. 2019 (7) TMi 541 – Gujarat High Court. (ii) Tata Sons Limited v. ACIT 2018 (12) TMI 916 ITAT Mumbai. (iii) Vireet Investment (P). Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi Trib) (SB) Provision for NPA (ground 5) (i) Yokogawa India Ltd. (2012) 17 taxmann.com 15 (Kar.) (ii) Kirloskar Systems Ltd. (2013) 40 taxmann.com 124 (Karnataka) (iii) Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (2017) (8) TMi 451 Gujarat High Court. (iv) Telco Construction Equipment Co. Ltd. (2016)_ (6) TMI 651 – Karnataka High Court. 6. The learned Departmental Representative has filed a brief written submission essentially supporting the order of CIT passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We shall adjudicate the issues on merits as under: ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 5 Depreciation on Investment Portfolio (Rs.3028.32 crore) (ground 3) 7.1.1 The assessee-bank before the CIT contended that depreciation of Rs.3028.32 crore was not debited to Profit and Loss account and accordingly, no adjustment to the book profit is required to be made as the amount is not recognized in the regular books of account. Without prejudice to the above contention, it was submitted that this amount cannot be added back on account of the fact that it is valuation loss. It was stated that it is not provision towards diminution in the value of assets. It was contended that as per item (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB(2) of the I.T.Act, it is only provision towards diminution of value of assets is to be added and not valuation loss as such. Therefore, it was submitted that for these reasons also this item cannot be added back to the book profits. 7.1.2 The CIT, however, rejected the objections of the assessee. The CIT after discussing the valuation of various securities held by the assessee, observed that the assessee has infact debited net depreciation to the profit and loss account amounting to Rs.537.32 crore and accordingly, necessarily adjustment ought to have been done in terms of section 115JB(2) of the I.T.Act to the book profit worked out by the assessee. The CIT thereby rejected the claim of the assessee that such net depreciation on investment is a ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 6 valuation loss and cannot be considered for computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act. 7.1.3 The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Torrent Private Limited (supra) was considering the following question of law:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting disallowance of provision for diminution in value of investment of Rs.13,85,00,000/- while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 7.1.4 In deciding the above question of law, the Hon’ble High Court has rendered the following findings:- “21.........Thus, insofar as the provision for diminution of value of investment to the extent of Rs.13.85 crores is concerned, the same has actually been reduced from the asset side of the balance sheet and, therefore, is in the nature of a write off. Under the circumstances, the amount of Rs.13.85 crore though bearing the nomenclature of provision for diminution of value of investment, having been actually written off, cannot be added to the book profit under section 115JB(2)(i) of the Act. ....................... 24. In the light of the above discussion, no infirmity can be found in the view adopted by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. The question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. It is hereby held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of provision for diminution in value of investment of Rs.13,85,00,000/- while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.” ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 7 7.1.5 Similar view has been held by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. M/s.Reliance Welfare Association Circle (supra), wherein it was held as follows:- “8. We find that considering the above facts a debit of Rs.46,94,62,365/- appearing in Profit & Loss Account is not a provisions set aside for diminution in value of investment but a actual charge to the Profit & Loss account which has been written off against the value of the current asset. Therefore, we are of the considered view that debit of Rs.46,94,62,365/- appearing in Profit & Loss Account is not a provision of set aside for diminution in value of investment but the actual charged for the loss in the diminution in value of investment. Therefore, we are of the view that for the book profit purpose of section 115JB is not required to be increased by Rs.46,94,62,365/- as the same is not in the nature of provision. 9. We find that recently Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vodaphone Essar Gujarat Ltd. wherein the Hon'ble High Court in tax appeal no.749 of 2012 has discussed the issue in detail by discussing decision Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s.Vijaya Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (323 ITR 0166) and Southern Technologies Limited Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (320 ITR 577) held as under:- "11. Further, recently the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vodaphone Essar Gujarat Ltd. decided after reference was made to the larger Bench for consideration of the following question: "Whether in view of decision of the Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank (Supra), Judgement in case of Deepak Nitrite Limited (Supra) was not correctly decided and, therefore, later judgement in case of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (Supra) lays down the correct law?" The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat observed the followings: "20. Above decisions of Supreme Court in cases of Southern Technologies Ltd. (Supra) and Vijaya Bank (Supra) thus bring out a clear distinction between a case where the assessee may make a provision for doubtful debts and a case where the assessee may make a provision for doubtful debts and a case where the assessee after creating such a provision for bad and doubtful debt by debiting in Profit & Loss account also simultaneously removes such provision from its account by reducing the corresponding amount from the loans and advances on the asset side of the balance sheet. The later would be an ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 8 instance of write-off and not a mere provision. Further observed that: 23. By way of culmination of above judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions, the situation that arises is that prior to the introduction of clause (i) to the explanation to section 115JB, as held by the Supreme Court in case of HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. (Supra), then the existing clause (c) did not cover a case where the assessee made a provision for bad or doubtful debt. With insertion 14 ITA No5976/M/12 A.Y.2008-09 of clause (i) to the explanation with retrospective effect, any amount or amounts set aside for provision for diminution in the value of the asset made by the assessee, would be added back for computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act. However, if this was not a mere provision made by the assessee by merely debiting the Profit and Loss Account and crediting the provision for bad and doubtful debt, but by simultaneously obliterating such provision from its accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from the loans and advances on the asset side of the balance sheet and consequently, at the end of the year showing the loans and advances on the asset aside of the balance sheet as net of the provision for bad debt, it would amount to a write off and such actual write off would not be hit by clause (i) of the explanation to section 115JB. The judgment in the case of Deepak Nitrite Limited (Supra) fell in the former category whereas from the brief discussion available in the judgment it appears that case of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (Supra) fell in the later category."” 7.1.6 In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, the A.O. is directed to verify whether depreciation / diminution of value of investment to the extent of Rs.3028.32 crore is concerned, the same has actually been reduced from the assets side of the balance sheet, and is in the nature of write off. Therefore, de hors the observation of the CIT, the AO is directed to complete the assessment in the light of the dictum laid down in the above cited judicial pronouncements. It is ordered accordingly. Hence, ground 3 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 9 Disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act (Rs.58.58 crore) (ground 4) 7.2 The Assessing Officer noted during the course of assessment that the assessee had voluntarily disallowed expenses relatable to exempt income u/s 14A of the I.T.Act to the extent of 5% of income on adhoc basis. The said disallowance of Rs.1,46,88,255 being amount relatable to exempt income was reckoned while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act. Since the basis of such disallowance was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee, the A.O. determined the disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act at Rs.58.58 crore by invoking Rule 8D and worked out the disallowance accordingly. Since the disallowance of expenditure made in the assessment order to the extent of Rs.58.58 crore has not been added while computing the book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the I.T.Act, the CIT held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7.2.1 We noticed that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd. (supra) was considering the following question of law:- “(c) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the adjustment made on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, in computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, is not as per the law without appreciating that the amount disallowed under section 14A is covered under Clause (i) of Explanation to Section 115JB(2)?” ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 10 7.2.2 In deciding the above question of law, the Hon’ble High Court rendered the following findings:- “7. So far as issue Nos.(iii) and (iv) are concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., reported in (2013) 358 ITR 323 (Gujarat) Where this court has held in paragraph Nos.7 to 6.5 this court has observed as under :- 6. So far as the fourth question is concerned, it pertains to the addition of Rs. 1,14,43,040 under section 115JB of the Act being the expenditure estimated on earning of dividend income under section 14A of the Act. 6.1 The Assessing Officer on referring to the said provision of section 115JB(2) of the Act added the said amount considering that any amount of expenditure relatable to the income exempted under section 10 of the Act shall need to be added in the profit shown in the "Profit and loss account". 6.2 When the matter travelled to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), since it deleted the addition of Rs. 1,14,43,040 while deciding question No. 1, it consequently deleted such addition under section 115JB of the Act on the ground that this would not serve any purpose. 6.3 The Tribunal decided the said issue as follows (page 576 of 1 ITR (Trib)-OL : "We have considered the rival submissions and we find that a similar issue was raised by the Revenue as per ground No. 3 above in respect of regular assessment of income and while deciding that ground, we have already upheld that disallowance of Rs. 5 lakhs in respect of administrative expenses will meet the ends of justice and no disallowance is called for in respect of interest expenditure. Hence, for the purpose of computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act also, we hold accordingly and confirm the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs. This ground of the Revenue's appeal is partly allowed." ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 11 6.4 As rightly held by both, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, this issue has a direct correlation with the first question. It was argued by the Revenue that while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act, the disallowance of interest expenditure on exempt income was wrongly negatived by both the authorities on the ground that it was not the liability for expenses, but a liability relating to assets. 6.5 We find no fault in the approach adopted by both the authorities. The addition under section 115JB of the Act of a sum of Rs. 1,14,43,040 when was made as an expenditure estimated on earning of dividend income under section 14A of the Act, without reiterating the rationale of confirming deletion of such amount as has been elaborately done at the time of deciding question No. 1, this deletion requires to be confirmed. 8. Taking into consideration the evidence on record and considering the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (supra), we are of the opinion that the issue Nos.(iii) and (iv) required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In that view of the matter, we answer questions (iii) and (iv) referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal of revenue is dismissed.” 23. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has formulated following question in the case of Bengal Finance & Investments P. Ltd. (supra) and replied as under:- (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387 under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?" ..................... 4. So far as question (b) is concerned, the impugned order of the Tribunal followed its decision in M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3850lMuml20 1 0 to held that an amount disallowed under section 14A ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 12 of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue's Appeal against the order of the Tribunal in Mis. Essar Teleholdings (supra) was dismissed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.438 of 2012 rendered on 7th August, 2014. In view of the above, question (b) does not raise any substantial question of law. 24. Respectfully following the above decision, we hold that no addition in the book profit would be made on the basis of calculations worked out under section 14A of the Act. We allow this ground of appeal in both the years and delete the additions. 23. We take notice of the fact that in context with the third proposed question, the ITAT placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CIT v. Alembic Ltd. (Tax appeal No.1249/2014) (ii) CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 323 24. The issue is squarely covered and in our opinion, no error could be said to have been committed by the ITAT in taking the view that no addition in the book profit can be made on the basis of the calculations worked out under section 14A of the Act.” 7.2.3 Similar view has been held by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Sons Limited v. ACIT (supra).The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal by following the Special Bench order of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (supra) had held as follows:- “10. We have noted that the Special bench in the case of Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. (supra) has finally taken the view that the view beneficial to the assessee is to be taken while deciding the issue in term of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192. In view of the above given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the AO has considered the issue during the original assessment proceedings and form a view permissible under law that no disallowance relatable to exempt income can be made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 13 and against Revenue by the decision of Special Bench of this ITAT Delhi in the case of Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. (supra) and considering the facts in entirety, we quash the revision proceedings as the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, we quash the revision order and allow this appeal of the assessee.” 7.2.4 Since the above judicial pronouncements have clearly held that disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act cannot be incorporated in the computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act, we hold that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on this point. It is ordered accordingly. Therefore, ground 4 is allowed. Provision created in Non Performing Assets (Rs.1438.11 crore) (ground 5) 7.3 It was submitted before the CIT that provision for NPA as per RBI Prudential norms is not covered by item (i) to Explanation to section 115JB(2) of the I.T.Act since it is not a provision but a write off. This provision is reduced from the gross advances while preparing the balance sheet. Therefore, it was contended that it has to be treated as write off and not a provision. In this context, the assessee relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 190 Taxman 257 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Yokagawa India Ltd. (2012) 17 taxmann.com 15 (Kar.) (iii) CIT v. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. (2013) 40 taxmann.com 124 (Kar.) (iv) CIT v. Telco Construction Equipment Co. Ltd. 2016 (6) TMI 651 Karnataka High Court. ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 14 (v) CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 55 (Guj. FB). 7.3.1 The objections of the assessee was rejected by the CIT by observing as under:- “7.4. The Assessee's contention that provision for NPA is an actual write off should have been examined by the AQ which has not been done. It is further noted that in case of another leading bank assessed with the same AO, the said Bank has on its own has added the provision for NPAs while computing Book profit under MAT which has also been duly accepted by the AO. In the above context, the AO ought to have examined the issue and made appropriate changes in the computation of book profits ii] s 115JB of the Income tax Act, 1961 after due verification of facts relating to the accounting entries made by the assessee in its books and the legal position As the Assessing Officer has not examined the factual as well as legal issues in the relevant perspective, the assessment order is considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” 7.3.2 The Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Limited (supra) had held as follows:- “2. The Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT[2010l3231TR 166/190 Taxman 257 (SC) has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of rejection under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act) when there is an actual write off by the assessee in its book. This Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 305/17 taxmann.com 15 (Kar.) has held adjustment of provision for bad and doubtful debts is reduced from the loans and advances or the debtors from the assets side of the balance sheet, the Explanation to Section 115JA and JB is not at all attracted. Therefore, after the Explanation the assessee is now required not only to debit the P and L account but simultaneously also reduce the loans and advances or the debtors from the assets side of the balance sheet to the extent of the corresponding amount so that, at the end of the year, the amount of loans and advances/debtors is shown as net of the provisions for the impugned bad debt. This Court in the case of CIT v. Jupiter Bio-Science Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 113/[2011] 202 Taxman 80/13 taxmann.com 161 (Kar.) has held the assessee is liable to pay advance tax as per the amended provisions of Section 115JB of the Act for the ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 15 relevant period. However, he is not liable to pay interest on the amount due as per the amended provisions. However, he has not paid the advance tax as per the provisions existing prior to the amendment. Hence, he is liable to pay interest on the said amount deducting the difference of the tax paid. The Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428/112 Taxman 61 (SC) has held that an assessee who is maintaining the accounts on mercantile system, a liability already accrued, though to be discharqed at a future date, would be a proper deduction while working out the profits and gains of his business, regard being had to the accepted principles of commercial practice and accountancy. It is not as if such deduction is permissible only in case of amounts actually expended or paid. The liability would be an accrued liability and would not convert into a conditional one merely because the liability was to be discharged at a future date. Therefore for that, reason it was held that the gratuity payable and encashment of earned leave is not a contingent liability and provision thereof is deducted. In the light of the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 7.3.3 A similar view has been held in the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) CIT v. Kirloskar Systems Limited (2013) 40 taxmann.com 12 4(Karnataka) (ii) CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited 2017 (8)TMI 451 –Gujarat High Court. (iii) CIT v. Telco Construction Equipment Co. Ltd. 2016 (6) TMI 651 – Karnataka High Court. 7.3.4 In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, the A.O. is directed to verify de hors the observations of the CIT whether provisions created for NPA is reduced from the assets side of the balance sheet. If so, the same is to be treated as write off. With these observations, we dispose of ground 5. ITNo.1679/Bang/2018. M/s Union Bank of India. 16 7.4 Since we have disposed of grounds 3 to 5 on merits, ground 2 with regard to CIT’s jurisdiction for invoking the powers u/s 263 of the I.T.Act is not adjudicated and the same is left open. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 17 th day of November, 2021. Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Sd/- (George George K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore; Dated : 17 th November, 2021. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bengaluru. 4. The Pr.CIT-3, Bengaluru. 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru. 6. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Bangalore