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

ITA 622/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0050 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.622/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CO - OP BANK LTD., 1429/G, PORNIMA APARTMENT, LAXMIPURI, KOLHAPUR. PAN : AAAAY1180G. . / APPELLANT V/S THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI. REVENUE BY : MS. SHABANA PARVEEN. PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 1, KOLHAPUR DATED 04.02.20 16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 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. 2011-1 2 ON 28.09.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.16.12.2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMIN ED AT / DATE OF HEARING : 19.03.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.03.2019 2 ITA NO.622/PUN/2016 RS.6,87,95,489/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.04.02.2016 (IN AP PEAL NO.KOP/454/13-14) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL 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 DISALLOWA NCE OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) TO THE EXTENT O F RS.6,43,000/- BEING 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 COMPUTATION O F 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 TOGETHE R. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOT ICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.12 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS FOR RURAL BRANCHES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ASSE SSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.38,43,100/- U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT FO R PROVISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS FOR RURAL BRANCHES. ASSESSEE HAD THUS CLAIMED EXCESS DEDUCTION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCO ME AS COMPARED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.26,43,100/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE EXCESS DEDUCTION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME NOT BE DIS ALLOWED, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. AO NOTED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC.36(1)(V IIA) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE WILL GET DEDUCTION FOR PROVISIONS OF BAD AND DOUBT FUL DEBTS ONLY OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PROVISION ACTUALLY DEBITED TO THE P ROFIT AND 3 ITA NO.622/PUN/2016 LOSS ACCOUNT. HE NOTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUA LLY CREATED A PROVISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS.12 LAKHS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.38,43,100/- AND THEREFORE THE EXCESS CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF RS.26,43,100/- IS NOT A LLOWABLE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.17/ 2008 DATED 26.11.2008. HE THUS DISALLOWED RS.26,43,100/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHE LD THE ORDER OF AO. 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 COVE RED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE IN ITA NOS.2161 & 2162/PN/2013 DATED 29.10.2014 FOR A.YS. 2007-0 8 & 2009-10. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFOR ESAID ORDER. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY T HE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, N O 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 T O DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS CLAIM OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS .26,43,100/- U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT AO HAS NOTED THAT AS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS.12 LAKHS MA DE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAD CLAIMED INCOME OF RS.38,43,100/-. THE EXCESS CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF 4 ITA NO.622/PUN/2016 RS.26,43,100/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.YS. 2008-09 AND 2009 -10 WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION 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 DOUBTFU L DEBTS ACTUALLY MADE IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS B EEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DEC ISION OF TRIBUNAL THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEA L OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE / STAYED OR OVERRULED BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PLAC ED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO POINT OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT OF E ARLIER YEARS NOR HAS PLACED ANY CONTRARY BINDING DECISION IN ITS SUPPORT. I N VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORD ER 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.622/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.