The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Satara V. Tax Recovery Officer.,

ITA 2194/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2934 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Question of law; Bad and doubtful debts; Revised return

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1515/PN/2012 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE KARAD JANTA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., TAL : KARAD, DIST : SATARA PAN NO. AAAAT7863R . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD-1, SATARA . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.2194/PN/2012 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE KARAD JANTA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., TAL : KARAD, DIST : SATARA PAN NO. AAAAT7863R . / APPELLANT V/S TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, SATARA . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 23-07-2012 AND 30-08-2012 OF THE CIT(A)- / DATE OF HEARING :13.01.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:13.01.2016 2 ITA NO.1515 AND 2194/PN/2012 III, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 200 9-10 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE EARLIER DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31-01-2014. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE M.A. N OS. 58 AND 59/PN/2014 ORDER DATED 09-09-2014 RECALLED THE AP PEALS FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DECIDING GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 IN ITA NO.1515/PN/2012 AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF 3 AND 7 IN ITA NO.2194/PN/2012. ITA NO.1515/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) : 3. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,08,09,305/- MADE BY THE A.O. REGARDING TO PROVISIONS OF S.36(1)(V II-A) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DISALLO WANCE MADE BY A.O. WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH P ROVISIONS WERE EXPLAINED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CA THOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. V. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC). IN VIEW OF TH IS THE CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE BY LD. CIT(A) OF RS.2,08,09,305/- BE QUA SHED 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD C LAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.20,16,280/- BEING 7.5% OF THE TOTAL INCOME A ND RS.2,52,93,026/- BEING 10% OF RURAL ADVANCES UNDER SEC.36(1)(V IIA) OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFU L DEBTS. HOWEVER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS W ERE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.65,00,000/-. IT IS EMPHASIZED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT AS PER PROVISION OF SEC.36(2)(V), DEDUCTION TOWARD S BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IS RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF P ROVISION CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOTING THAT IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE, SUCH PROVISION CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TO TH E EXTENT OF 3 ITA NO.1515 AND 2194/PN/2012 RS.65,00,000/- AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VIIA) COULD BE ALLOWED ONLY TO THAT EX TENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE EXCESS PROVISION CLAIMED OVER RA.65,00,000/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL DEDUCTION CLAIMED OF RS.2,73,09,306/- AMOUNTING T O RS.2,08,09,306/- WAS DISALLOWED. 5. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS UPHELD TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE I TA NO.2150/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 29-04-2015 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED AGAINST THE AS SESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE HOWEVER FILED A COPY OF THE DEC ISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF STATE BAN K OF HYDERABAD VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 63 TAXMANN.COM 322 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAOVUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11, THEREFORE, THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED AND TH E GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF 4 ITA NO.1515 AND 2194/PN/2012 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MAHALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE BAN K LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1658/PN/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 29.10.2013 HAD ELABORATED UPON THE CREATION OF PROVISION AND IN TURN HAD RELIED ON THE RATIO LAI D DOWN BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE BAN K OF PATIALA VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND HAD HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O MAKE THE PROVISIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION SOUGHT TO BE CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION BU T ONLY DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50,00,000/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF PRO VISION ACTUALLY MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER:- 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. WE HAVE ALSO ANXIOUSLY PERUSED THE AUTHORITIES CITED AT BAR IN O RDER TO DETERMINE THE CONTROVERSY ON HAND. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SECTIO N 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT, AS APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2008-09 READS AS UNDER : - [(VIIA) [IN RESPECT OF ANY PROVISION FOR BAD AND D OUBTFUL DEBTS MADE BY (A) A SCHEDULED BANK [NOT BEING [* * *] A BANK INCO RPORATED BY OR UNDER THE LAWS OF A COUNTRY OUTSIDE INDIA] OR A NON-SCHEDULED BANK [OR A CO-OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY A GRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTUR AL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK], AN AMOUNT [NOT EXCEEDING SEVEN A ND ONE-HALF PER CENT] OF THE TOTAL INCOME (COMPUTED BEFORE MAKI NG ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE AND CHAPTER VIA) AND AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING [TEN] PER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE A DVANCES MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCHES OF SUCH BANK COMPUTED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER : 10. A BARE PERUSAL OF AFORESAID SECTION CLEARLY BR INGS OUT THAT THE DEDUCTION SPECIFIED THEREIN IS IN RESPECT OF ANY P ROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS MADE BY.. AN ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. T HE PRESENCE OF THE AFORESAID EXPRESSION IN THE SECTION SUPPORTS THE PL EA OF THE REVENUE, WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IS IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF PAT IALA (SUPRA) CLEARLY COVERS THE CONTROVERSY IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND BELIES THE INTERPRETATION SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSED BY THE ASSESS EE. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, ASSESSEE-BANK HAD ORIGINALL Y FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1985-86 CLAIMING DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT AT RS.1,90,36,000/-. AFTER F ILING OF THE RETURN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT WERE A MENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 1985 WHEREBY DEDUCTION WAS ENHANCED TO 10% OF THE P ROFIT OR 2% OF THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES MADE BY RURAL BRANCHES O F THE BANK, WHICHEVER WAS HIGHER. ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMENDED PRO VISIONS, ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.04.1986 ENHA NCING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION FROM RS.1,90,36,000/- TO RS.1,94,21,000/- . THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT TO RS.1,90,36,000/- ONLY AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PERTAINING TO THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD MADE A PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS.1,90,36,000/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE PROVISION OF RS.1,90,3 6,000/- WAS MADE IN THE BALANCE-SHEET FINALIZED ON 14.02.1985 WHICH WAS AS PER THE UNAMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT AND THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT PER MITTING HIGHER CLAIM 5 ITA NO.1515 AND 2194/PN/2012 OF DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY MADE THE HIGHER PROVISION IN THE BALANCE-SHEET FINALIZED ON A PRIOR DATE, BUT IT MADE UP THE SHORTFALL BY MAKING AN ADEQUATE PROVISION IN TH E BALANCE-SHEET OF THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON THIS BASIS, IT WAS S OUGHT TO BE MADE OUT THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQU IREMENT OF LAW OF MAKING PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND THE REFORE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR THE COMPLETE A MOUNT OF RS.1,94,21,000/- AND NOT RESTRICTED TO RS.1,90,36,0 00/-. THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL NEGATED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT AND OBSERVED THAT ..THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U NDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS IS IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION MADE AND FURTHER WENT ON TO HOLD THAT ..MAKING OF A PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THIS SECTION IS MUST FOR CLAIMI NG SUCH DEDUCTION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJ AB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IN OUR VIEW, THE POSITION SOUGHT TO BE CANVA SSED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE REPELLED. WE REPRODUCE HEREINAFTER T HE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 5. SEC.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE TO THE ASST. YR. 1985-86, READS AS UNDER : IN RESPECT OF ANY PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL D EBTS MADE BY A SCHEDULED BANK [NOT BEING A BANK APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF CL.(VIII A) OR A BANK INCORPORATED BY OR UNDER THE LAWS OF A COUNTRY OUTSIDE INDIA] OR A NON-SCHEDULED BANK, AN AMOUNT N OT EXCEEDING TEN PER CENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME (COMPUTE D BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE AND CHAPTER VI-A) OR AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING TWO PER CE NT OF THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCHES OF SUCH BANK, COMPUTED IN THE PRESCRIBED M ANNER, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. 6. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT THE DEDUC TION ALLOWABLE UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS IS IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION MADE. THEREFORE, MAKING OF A PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THIS SECTION IS A MUST FOR CLAIMING SUCH DEDUCTION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY P OINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE STANDS FURTHER CLARIFIED FROM THE PROVIS O TO CL.(VII) OF S.36(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER : PROVIDED THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE TO WHICH CL.(VIIA) APPLIES, THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTION RELATING TO AN Y SUCH DEBT OR PART THEREOF SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT BY WHICH SUCH DEBT OR PART THEREOF EXCEEDS THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ACCOUNT MADE UNDER THAT CLAUSE. 7. THIS ALSO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT MAKING OF PROVISION EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE ACCOUNT BOOK S IS NECESSARY FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER S. 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISTINGUISHED VARIOUS AUTHORITIES RELI ED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN DEDUCTIONS HAD BEEN ALLOWED UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS WHICH ALSO REQUIRED CREATION OF RESERVE AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAD CREATED SUCH RESERVE IN THE ACCOUNT BO OKS BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. IT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY POINTED OUT 6 ITA NO.1515 AND 2194/PN/2012 THAT IN ALL THOSE CASES, RESERVES/PROVISIONS HAD BE EN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NO T OF THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE A NY PROVISION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E., 1985-86, BY MAKING SUPPLEMENTA RY ENTRIES AND BY REVISING ITS BALANCE SHEET. THE PROVISION HAS BE EN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 9. WE ARE, THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT THE TRIBUNAL W AS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A PROVISIO N OF RS.1,19,36,000 FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS, ITS CLAI M FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT HAD TO BE RESTRICTE D TO THAT AMOUNT ONLY. SINCE THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS CLEAR AN D IS NOT CAPABLE OF ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL FOR CONSIDERA TION BY THIS COURT. 11. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID INTERPRETATION OF SECT ION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DESERVE TO BE UPHELD INASMUCH AS THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT MADE A PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION SOUGHT TO BE CLAIMED UNDER SECT ION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES WERE JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION TO RS.50,00,000/-, BEING THE AMOUNT OF PROVISION ACTUALLY MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 12. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED CERTAIN DECISION IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSITION THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IS NOT LINKED TO MAKING OF A PROVISION IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. AT THE OUTSET, WE MAY OBSERVE THAT THE DECIS IONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OF VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND NOT OF ANY HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA (SUPRA), WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE D ECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE; AND BEING SOLITARY JUD GEMENT OF A HIGH COURT, IS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED, HAVING REGARD TO THE EST ABLISHED NORMS OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. FOR THE SAID REASON, WE REFRAI N FROM DISCUSSING EACH OF THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE US. 18. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MAHALAXMI CO-OP. BANK LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO MAKE FULL PROVISION, IS ONLY ENTITLE D TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50 LAKHS BEING THE AMOU NT OF PROVISION ACTUALLY MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY , WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO TH E FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E FOR A.Y. 7 ITA NO.1515 AND 2194/PN/2012 2010-11, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE G ROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.2194/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) : 10. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE , I.E. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 AND 7 WHICH READ AS UNDER : 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.2,46,60,303/- SO CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 36(1) (VII-A) OF THE ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE IS UNDER MISCONCEPTION OF LAW. THE LD . CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMEN T IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. V. CIT(2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) THE COPY OF WHICH WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. THE PRINCIPLE ENU NCIATED IS EVEN THE DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII-A) WAS TO BE ALLO WED SIMPLY ON PROVISION MADE ALSO. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT PROPER IT BE DELETED. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,96,69,614/- HOLDING THAT THE PROVISION MADE OF RS. 2,41,69,614/- WAS IN EXCESS BY RS.45,00,000/-. THE PROVISION OF RS.2,41,69,614/- HAVI NG CORRECTLY MADE U/S 36(1)(VII-A) WAS ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF JUDICI AL PRECEDENT PRONOUNCED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CATHOLIC SYR IAN BANK CASE (SUPRA). THE DISALLOWANCE BEING AGAINST LAW BE DELETED . 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE IDENTICAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1515/PN/2012 HAS BEEN DISMISSED. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONINGS, THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING ITSELF, I.E. ON 13-01-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; # DATED : 13 TH JANUARY, 2016. LRH'K 8 ITA NO.1515 AND 2194/PN/2012 ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A) - II I , PUNE 4. 5. 6. CIT-III, PUNE ' *, *, IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ' //TRUE COPY// / * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE