M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur V. Addl. CIT, Trichy

MA 318/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5222 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN; N QUADIR HOSEYN
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI D BENCH, CHENNAI. (BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GE ORGE, A.M.) M.A. NOS. 289 AND 318/MDS/2009 [IN I.T.A. NO. 1574/MDS/2005] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 M/S. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD. CENTRAL OFFICER, ERODE ROAD, KARUR. [PAN: AAACT3373J] VS. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN & SHRI T. VASUDEVAN REVENUE BY : SHRI B. SRINIVAS ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. BY MEANS OF TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE AS SESSEE SEEKS TO GET RECTIFIED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FIRST MA DATED 01.10.2 009 REGISTERED UNDER NO.289/MDS/2009, THE ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO INTER EST PAID ON PURCHASE OF SECURITIES OR BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST AND IN THE SECOND MA DATED 2 8.07.2009 REGISTERED UNDER NO. 318/MDS/2009 IS ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IN I.T.A. NO. 1574/MDS/2005 ARISING OUT OF THE CONSOLI DATED ORDER DATED 27.05.2009 IN APPEALS NO. 1597, 1598 & 1599/MDS/2005 OF THE DEPAR TMENT AND I.T.A. NOS. 1572, 1573 & 1574/MDS/2005 OF THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE MAS WERE HEARD TOGETHER RELATING TO THE SAME TRIBUNAL ORDER, THEREFORE BEING DISPOSED O FF BY THIS SINGLE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. WHILE ARGUING THE APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO T HE FIRST MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ONE OF THE CO MMON ISSUES IN APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WAS THE INTEREST PAID ON PU RCHASE OF SECURITIES OR BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST ON WHICH BOTH THE SIDES I.E. THE AS SESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .289 & 318/MDS/09 289 & 318/MDS/09 289 & 318/MDS/09 289 & 318/MDS/09 2 RAISED GROUNDS AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER AT PAR AS 32 TO 36 DISPOSED OFF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WHEREAS, THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO. 6 TO 6.4 WAS NOT ADJUDICATED AT ALL. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT NON-DECIDING THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORD, WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED AND THE SAME MAY BE RECTIFIED AS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURTS DECISION. 3. THE LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE APPLICATIONS O F THE ASSESSEE AND PLEADED THAT IN PARA 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN STATED THAT IN ADDITION TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO P LACED ON RECORD A CHART SHOWING THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND AS TO HOW THE SAME ARE COVERED BY EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL/HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, MAKING SPECIFIC MEN TION, THE BENCH TAKING THE CHART AS BASE HAS PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE SIX APPEAL S IN THE LATER PARAGRAPHS, SO FROM THIS OBSERVATION OF THE BENCH, IT BECOMES AMPLY CLE AR THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE CHART SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING, T HE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE CHART THERE IS NO M ENTION ABOUT THE ISSUE RELATABLE TO THE INTEREST PAID ON PURCHASE OF SECURITIES OR BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST IN ANY OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS, IN THE APPEALS OF THE DEP ARTMENT, IN THE CHART ITSELF SUCH ISSUE IS MENTIONED AT ITEM NO. 1 FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE AND IT HAS NOT BE EN ADJUDICATED BY THE BENCH. SO, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS MISCONCEIVED AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SECOND APPLICATION, WHICH IS BEING CONSIDERED BY THIS BENCH SIMULTANEOUSLY, IN MA NO. 318/MDS/2009, IN PARA 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED ABOUT NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE OF T HE BAD DEBTS FOR THE YEAR 1998-99 M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .289 & 318/MDS/09 289 & 318/MDS/09 289 & 318/MDS/09 289 & 318/MDS/09 3 FORMING PART OF HE GROUND AS ALSO THE CHART FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION SUCH CONTENTION HAS NOT RAISED AT ALL AND SAME IS MISSING. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE RAIS ED SUCH ISSUE AND THE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO DECIDE OR OMITTED TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME, A S SUCH APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERITS, WHICH NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED AND MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, MATER IAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED IN PARA 3 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER: 3. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE PAPER-BOOK, THE ASSES SEE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) NOS. 665 & 666 OF 2004 DATED 9.3.2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD A CHART SHOWING THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND AS TO HOW THE SAME ARE COVERED BY EARL IER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL/HIGH COURT. IN THIS ORDER, WE ARE TAKING T HE CHART AS THE BASE AND PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE SIX APPEALS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 5. AS PER THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE BENCH, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF SUBMITTED A CHART ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASS ED AND AS PER CHART SUBMITTED FOR ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE DEPAR TMENT, THIS ISSUE IS NOT THERE IN THE CHART PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SO, IT HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN RAISED, WHEN IN ALL THERE ARE SIX ISSUES OTHER THAN THE ISSUE RAISE D IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA NO.289/MDS/2009) TO WHICH THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WA S ALSO APPRISED, WHO COULD NOT BE ABLE TO REBUT THE SAME. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO PURSUE THIS ISSUE AS CONTAINED IN GROUND NO. 6 TO 6 .4 OF HIS APPEAL WHEN IT ITSELF FURNISHED A CHART AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEALS OF BOTH DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED AND THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPLICATION (MA NO.289/MDS/2009) ALSO DID NOT MENTI ON THAT SUCH GROUND WAS AN ISSUE M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .289 & 318/MDS/09 289 & 318/MDS/09 289 & 318/MDS/09 289 & 318/MDS/09 4 FORMING PART OF THE CHART SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE . AS SUCH, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS BENCH, AS SUCH, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 01.10.2009 REGISTERED AS MA NO.289/M DS/2009 IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 6. AS REGARDS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 28 .07.2009 REGISTERED AS MA NO.318/MDS/2009, WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT S FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 TO 98-99 WAS ALREADY THERE IN THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE AS WELL AS WAS INCORPORATED IN THE CHART SUBMITTED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED, BUT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL ONLY DEALT WITH THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND OMITTED TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE SAID ISSUE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THEREFORE, THIS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERING TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THE ORDER IN APPEAL FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS ONLY AND DIRECT THE R EGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AND ISSUE NOTICE ACCORDINGLY. 8. AS A RESULT, MA NO. 289/MDS/2009 OF THE ASSESSE E STANDS DISMISSED AND MA NO. 318/MDS/2009 GETS ACCEPTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12.10.2010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VM/- DATED :.12.10.2010. COPY TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.