INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - B BENCH. . , , BEFORE S/SH. D. MANMOHAN, VICE-PRESID ENT & SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.320/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 9195/MUM/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BANK OF BARODA C-26, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 PAN: AAACB1534F VS. ADD. CIT RANGE-2(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, QUEENS ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( !' / APPELLANT ) ( #$!' / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.NARESH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.P.K. PANDA % & '( ) / DATE OF HEARING : 21-02-2014 * +, '( ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-03-2014 -. / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. VIDE ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION(MA)DATED 28.08.2 013,ASSESSEE BANK HAS STATED THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES WERE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD,THAT SAME SH OULD BE RECTIFIED U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT TRIBUNAL HAD DECID ED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE BANK ON 12.06.2013(ITA/NO.9195/MUM/2010-AY.2003-04) THAT TH E TRIBUNAL HAD PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT YEAR,THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ON 28/06/2012,THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS NOT ADJUDICAT ED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL,THAT ABOVE ISSUE AROSE FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA),THAT ALL THE FACTS WERE ON RECORD. 2 .DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE APPLICATION. AFTER HEARING HIM AND AFTER PERUSING THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE- BANK HAD FILED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS)-4,MUMBAI ERRED IN ALLOWING ONLY RS.29, 08,15,000 UNDER SECTION 36W(VII) INSTEAD OF RS. 434,17,95,000/- AS BAD DEBTS WRITE OFF. 2.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-4 ,MUMBAI STATED IN PARA 22 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER THAT PETITIONER IS ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) AND 36(1)(VIIA) SEPARATELY THIS IS CONFIRMED SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN SANK LIMITED VS CIT 248 CTR7(SC) WE FIND THAT W HILE DECIDING THE ABOVE APPEAL,TRIBUNAL HAD NOT CON SIDERED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE.THUS,THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT FORM THE RECORD THAT HAS TO BE RECTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY,WE FIX THE MATTER FOR HEARING 06.03.201 4 BY THE REGULAR BENCH,SO THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DECIDED.AS BO TH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING,SO NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARI NG WILL BE ISSUED. MA NO. 320 /MUM/2013(ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 9195/MU M/2010) BANK OF BARODA 2 AS A RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE-BANK STANDS ALLOWED. /,)0 /,)0 /,)0 /,)0 1 2/) 1 2/) 1 2/) 1 2/) DAIUH DAIUH DAIUH DAIUH 3 4 4 4 4 FD;K X;K FD;K X;K FD;K X;K FD;K X;K FOFO/K FOFO/K FOFO/K FOFO/K VKOSNU VKOSNU VKOSNU VKOSNU '5) '5) '5) '5) F FF F ' '' ' ;K ;K ;K ;K ) ) ) ) K KK K 6 6 6 6 S SS S . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT ON 5 TH MARCH, 2014. -. '( * +, % 7 8 ' 5 EKPZ EKPZ EKPZ EKPZ ,201 4 ' '( 9& : SD/- SD/- ( . / D.MANMOHAN) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %;& / MUMBAI, 8 ' /DATE: 05.03.2014 SK -. -. -. -. '( '('( '( #1)1< #1)1< #1)1< #1)1< =<+) =<+) =<+) =<+) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / !' 2. RESPONDENT / #$!' 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ ;> -' -%? , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / ;> -' -%? 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / <@9 #1)1 12 A , - . . . %;& 6. GUARD FILE/ 9 B& $<) #1) //TRUE COPY// -. % / BY ORDER, / ' ' DY./ASST. REGISTRAR -' 12', , %;& /ITAT, MUMBAI