Youth Development Co-op Bank Ltd., Kolhapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,

ITA 2635/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0049 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.2635/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CO - OP BANK LTD., 1429/G, PORNIMA APARTMENT, LAXMIPURI, KOLHAPUR. PAN : AAAAY1180Y. . / APPELLANT V/S THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. J.R. CHANDEKAR. REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWALI. PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 1, KOLHAPUR DATE D 20.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK ENGAGED IN THE BANKING BUSINESS AND ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y . 2012- 13 ON 30.09.2012 SHOWING LOSS IN AND BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF RS.18,69,404/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND TH EREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER / DATE OF HEARING : 28.03.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.03.2019 2 ITA NO.2635/PUN/2016 DT.27.03.2015 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.3,74,96,010/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.20.09.2016 (IN APPEAL NO.KOP/99/15-16) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN AP PEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DECIS ION OF THE AO OF DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36 (1)(VIIA) IN EXCESS OF THE PROVISION MADE IN THE ACCOUNTS. 2. THE APPELLANT BANK SUBMITS THAT IT IS ENTITLED T O THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) AS CLAIMED IN THE COMPUTA TION OF INCOME IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PROVISION MADE IN THE BOOKS. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO A LLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) AS CLAIMED. 3. ALL THE GROUNDS BEING INTER-CONNECTED ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOT ICED THAT ASSESSEE MADE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS.3 LAKHS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION TO THE TUNE OF RS.45,68,879/- U/S 36 (1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE HAD THUS CLAIMED EXCESS DEDUCTION OF RS.42,68,879/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE EXCESS DEDUCTION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME NOT BE DISA LLOWED, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. AO NOTED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE WILL GET DEDUCTION FOR PROV ISIONS OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ONLY OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PROVISION ACTUALLY DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HE NO TED THAT 3 ITA NO.2635/PUN/2016 SINCE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY CREATED A PROVISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS.3 LAKHS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.45,68,879/- AND THEREFORE THE EXCESS C LAIM TO THE EXTENT OF RS.42,68,879/- IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE THUS DISALLOWE D RS.42,68,379/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSE SSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A). LD.CIT(A) FOR THE REASONS STATE D IN PARAS 6 TO 12 OF THE ORDER DENIED THE CLAIM OF ASSESS EE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A). LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS C OVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.2161 & 2162/PN/2013 DATED 29.10.2014 FOR A.YS. 2007- 08 & 2009-10. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF TH E AFORESAID ORDER. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS CO VERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, NO INTERFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS CLAIM OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS.42,68,879/- U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT AO HAS NOTED THAT AS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBT FUL DEBTS OF RS.3 LAKHS MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF INCOME OF 4 ITA NO.2635/PUN/2016 RS.45,68,879/-. THE EXCESS CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF RS.42,6 8,879/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE ARO SE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.YS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 WHER EIN THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAHALAXMI CO-OP BANK LTD., VS. ACIT (ITA NO.1658/PN/2011 DT.29.10.2013) DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ACTUALLY MADE IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. BEFORE US, NO MATE RIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRAT E THAT THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE / STAYED OR OVERRULED BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. BEFORE US, A SSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO POINT OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT OF EARLIER YEARS NOR HAS PLACED AN Y CONTRARY BINDING DECISION IN ITS SUPPORT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACT S, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 29 TH MARCH, 2019. YAMINI 5 ITA NO.2635/PUN/2016 '#$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4 5. 6. THE CIT(A)-1, KOLHAPUR. THE CIT-I, KOLHAPUR. !,# ! , / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; &'(/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ) *+, - / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY # ! , / ITAT, PUNE.