M/s. Sikar Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited, Sikar V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Sikar

ITA 865/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0074 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNI PAL JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: FAZLUR RAHMAN
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 234B; 37

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH SMC, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 865/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14. M/S. SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., BASANT VIHAR, JAIPUR ROAD, SIKAR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, SIKAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAAAS 1603 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI FAZLUR RAHMAN (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19.09.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/10/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 04.05.2018 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-3 JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. RS. 5,17,467/-: THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW A S WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF OVERDUE INTEREST MERELY ALLEGING THAT SAME IS NO T ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BEING TOTA LLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS KINDLY BE ALLOWE D AS CLAIMED. 2. THE AO & LD. CIT (A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WEL L AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B & 234D OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES ITS LIABILITY OF CHARG ING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. THE INTEREST SO CHARGED BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, KINDLY BE DELETED IN F ULL. 2 ITA NO. 865/JP/2018 SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., SIKAR. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCES TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER OF OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS OF OVER DUE INTEREST. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING UNDER THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE NABARD OR R ESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVIS IONS OF OVER-DUE INTEREST OF RS. 5,17,467/-. THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS REJECTED THE SAID CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT AND THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THIS T RIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 3. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING T HE INTEREST BEING BAD DEBTS IN RESPECT OF THE LOANS WHICH HAVE BECOME NPA. HE HAS THUS CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL ITSELF HAS BECOME DOUBTFUL, TH EN THE INTEREST ON OVER-DUE INTEREST ON SUCH NPA CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWABLE AS DEDUCTION. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIB UNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, AT THE OUTSET IT IS NOTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS 3 ITA NO. 865/JP/2018 SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., SIKAR. TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.08.2017. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ADJUDICATED THIS I SSUE BY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. C IT (A) IN PARA 6.3 IS AS UNDER :- 6.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL BEF ORE ME. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,17 ,467/- AS PROVISIONS OF OVERDUE INTEREST MAKING THE OBSERVATION IN ASSES SMENT ORDER. THIS ISSUE COVERED AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE APPELLAN T OWN CASE VIDE BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN ITA N O. 285/JP/2017 HELD WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) H AS GIVEN FINDING ON FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN OFF SUCH NPA AND INTEREST THERE ON AS BAD DEBT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THI S FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E. LTD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS MISPLACED THE SECTION 37 RELATES TO THE ANY EXPE NDITURE NOT BEING EXPENDITURE OF THE NATURE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 30 T O 36 SINCE THE INTEREST IS PART OF THAT WOULD BE COVERED U/S 36(1) (VII) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS IN OUR VIEW RULE OF CONSISTENCY WOULD APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE PARTICULAR ACCOUNTI NG POLICY AND THE REVENUE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THE SAME BUT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OR DISALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES WOULD CERTAINLY DEPEND UPON THE PROVISION OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES AP PEAL IS DISMISSED. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONB LE ITAT JAIPUR I AM THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIG HTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,17,467/- AS PROVISIONS OF OVERDUE INTEREST. ACCORDINGLY I CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER OF RS. 5,17,467/-. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 4 ITA NO. 865/JP/2018 SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., SIKAR. THUS IN VIEW OF THE EARLIER DECISION OF THIS TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY TH ERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THIS I SSUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/10/201 9. SD/- ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 24/10/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., SIKAR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 4, SIKAR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 865/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 5 ITA NO. 865/JP/2018 SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., SIKAR.