The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd, Mahaboobnagar, Mahabubnagar V. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 859/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2635 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KANIKA AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) ITA NO.859/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012 - 13 THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., MAHABOOBNAGAR. PAN: AAAA T 4794 K VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY: MS. KANIKA AGARWAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 02/11/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04 /11/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 10, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0095/CIT(A) - 10/2015 - 16, DATED 26/12/2016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY: 2012 - 13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL WHICH ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. 2 3. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FI LED BEFORE HIM AND THE SAME WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF DECIDING THE APPEAL AND THAT THEREFORE, SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,71,83,115/ - MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. 5. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT INCLUDES RESER VES FOR OVERDUE INTEREST OF RS. 3,00,51,336/ - , PROVISION TOWARDS PRUDENTIAL NORMS OF RS. 3,06,14,300/ - , ADJUSTMENT HE ADS OF RS. 21,396/ - , RECONCILIATION DIFFERENCE OF RS. 27,29,400/ - AND RESERVE FOR STANDARD ASSETS OF RS. 37,66,683/ - . 6. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,45,326/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS EXCESS PROVISION MADE U/S. 36(1) (VIA) O F THE ACT. 7. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING THE PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS OF RS. 66,38,705/ - . 8. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE R EMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER 3 SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE TH E APPEAL EX - PARTE BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HOWEVER, HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER. HENCE , CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERAT E BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. 4 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH NOVEMBER, 2020. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 04 TH NOVEMBER, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1. THE DISTRICT CENTRAL BANK LTD., D.NO.1 - 6 - 144/5A, P.B. NO.14, OPP. DISTRICT COURT, MAHABOOBNAGAR 509001. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1), INCOME TAX TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 10, HYDERABAD. 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.