M/s Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(2), Bangalore

MA 4/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2623 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Bad and doubtful debts; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 115JB; 40(a)(ia); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MP NO.4/BANG/2019 [IN IT A NO . 211 & 21 2 /BANG/ 2018] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, 4 TH FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560 001. PAN: AACCB 1412G VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), BANGALORE. APPLICANT RESPONDENT APP LICANT B Y : SHRI V. SRIDHAR, CA RESP ONDENT BY : SMT. SW APNA DAS, JT.C I T(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 10.05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 9 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT] ALLEGING TH AT THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 08.0 6.2018 PASSED IN THE AFORESAID APPEALS AND PRAYING FOR RECTIFICATION OF THOSE ALLEGED MISTAKES. 2. WE NEED TO SET OUT SOME BASIC FACTS BEFORE WE DEAL WITH THE CONTENTIONS IN THE M.A. THE ASSESSEE WAS INCORPOR ATED ON 30.04.2002 UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE ASSESSEE IS A W HOLLY OWNED MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 12 UNDERTAKING OF THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA (STATUTORY CO RPORATION). IT DISTRIBUTES ELECTRICITY IN THE AREA ASSIGNED TO IT. FOR THE AY 2012-13, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES FOR AY 2009-10 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 2,63,17,625. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO IN AN ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND TAX LEVIED U/S. 115JB ON THE BOOK PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THE TAX PAYABLE U/S. 115JB WAS HI GHER THAN THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED UNDER THE NORM AL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHICH WILL BE EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING:- COMPUTATION OF INCOME TOTAL BUSINESS INCOME AS PER COMPUTATION STATEMENT ADD: 1. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPN. FROM REC TOWARDS RS. 36,63,17,625 RGGVY SCHEME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION ESTIMATED/POSSIBLE EROSION IN VALUE OF FAULTY AND DISMANTLED ASSET R S.13,15,92,728 3. DISALLOWANCE OF MATERIAL COST VARIANCE AS ABOVE . RS. 3,73,02,330 4. DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF MATERIALS BY PILFERAGE RS. 7,33,679 5. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) AS DISCUSSED ABOVE . RS. 7,86,520 TOTAL INCOME .. RS.70,96,03,748 LESS: BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES ADJUSTED RS.70,96, 03,478 BALANCE NIL TAX THEREON NIL COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB: NET PROFIT AS PER P&L A/C RS. 124,20,08,496 ADD: DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION ESTIMATED/ POSSIBLE EROSION IN VALUE OF FAULTY AND DISMANTLED ASSET RS. 3,73,02,330 ADJUSTED BOOK PROFITS RS. 127,93,10,826 LESS: B/F BOOK LOSSES .. NIL TAXABLE BOOK PROFITS RS. 127,93,10,830 MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 12 TAX THEREON @ 18.5% RS. 23,66,72,503 ADD: SURCHARGE @ 5% RS. 1,18,33,625 ADD: EDU. CESS @ 3% RS. 74,55,184 RS. 25.59,61,312 LESS: TDS AND ADV. TAX RS. 1,31,75,756 RS. 24,27,85,556 ADD: INT. U/S. 234B RS. 7,63,67,617 RS. 31,91,53,173 LESS: TAX PAID U/S. 140A RS. 2,86,91,091 BALANCE PAYABLE RS. 29,04,62,082 AS THE TAX PAYABLE U/S. 115JB IS HIGHER, THE SAME I S ADOPTED. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE ACCORDINGLY. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED APPEAL AND THAT APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD REFERENCE O F APPEAL NO. AS ITA 340/CIT(A)-1/CO/14-15. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THE ASS ESSEE AGITATED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS.3,73,02,330 BEING AN ADDITION MADE TO THE PROFIT AS PER P&L ACC OUNT TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION ESTIMATED/POSSIBLE EROSION IN VALUE OF FA ULTY AND DISMANTLED ASSET. 4. THE CIT(APPEALS) BY ORDER DATED 26.9.2017 HELD T HAT THE AFORESAID ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFI TS U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ONLY GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION REGARDIN G THE PROVISION FOR ESTIMATED VALUE OF SCRAPED ASSETS / EROSION IN VALU E OF FAULTY AND DISMANTLED ASSETS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,73,02,330/- MAD E TO BE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT. IN RESPECT OF THIS GROU ND, IT IS SEEN THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THEIR ORDER IN ITA NO. 729 AND 793/BANG/2013 DATED 8.3.2013, FOR THE ASST. YEARS 2 003-04 AND 2008-09, HAVE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE CIT (APPE ALS) WHO IN TURN HELD THAT THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THESE T WO HEADS CANNOT MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 12 BE MADE WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB O F THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, I DELETE THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD. 5. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL. THE DIRECTION FOR FILING THE APPEAL AGA INST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(A) U/S. 252(3) OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED BY THE P R.CIT, BENGALURU-1 DATED 19.1.18 IN LAOR NO.10/PR.CIT-1/17-18. THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL THAT WERE APPROVED IN THIS REGARD ARE AS FOLLOWS:- LAOR 170/PR.CIT-1/17-18 A.Y. 2012-13 ITA NO.340/CIT (A)1/CO/14-15 M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD PAN: AACCB1412G A.O.: DCIT, C-1(1)(2), BENGALURU GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), IN SO FAR A S IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE WITH REGARD TO PROVIS ION FOR ESTIMATED VALUE IN SCRAPPED ASSETS/ EROSION IN VALUE OF FAULT Y AND DISMANTLED ASSETS WHERE THE MATTER HAS NOT REACHED FINALITY AN D THE REVENUE'S APPEALS ON THE SAID DISPUTED ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEE' S OWN CASE ARE PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE S UPREME COURT FOR THE AYS 2008-09 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. 3. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 12 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, TO AME ND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND CLAIMED THA T THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FILE FORM 29B AND THE BOOK PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT SHOULD BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH FORM 29B. IN FORM 29B FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH APPLICATI ON U/S. 154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS A CREDIT OF RS. 80,18,90,736 BEING THE EXCESS PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS CREDITE D TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AFORESAID SUM SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFIT AS PER THE P&L ACCOUNT TO BE MADE IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE ASSESSEES CONTENT ION WAS THAT IN AY 2003-04, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM THAT PROVISI ON FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFIT AS PER P&L ACCOUNT PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, TOOK A STAND THAT SINCE IT WAS A PROVISION, THE SAME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED WHILE DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. THE STAND OF THE DE PARTMENT WAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN ITA NO.564/2 008 BY ORDER DATED 23.6.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS, HOWEVER, CHALLENGED T HE SAID ORDER BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND THE APPEAL IN THIS RE GARD IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ON THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING ADOPT ED BY THE REVENUE IN AU 2003-04 ON EXCLUDING PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS DEB ITED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE CREDIT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDED. MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 6 OF 12 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE MAD E A CLAIM THAT THE EXCESS PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON THE SAME ANALOGY SHOULD NOT BE TREATED A S INCOME WHILE DETERMINING BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. 8. THE AO BY AN ORDER DATED 02.03.2015 REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE AO AND THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WAS NUMBERED ITA NO.43/CIT(A)/1/CO/15-16. THE CIT(A) BY AN ORDER DA TED 26.09.2017 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HOLDING AS FOLLOWS:- THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT SINCE THERE WAS SUFFICI ENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE FORM 29B WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN, THE FORM FILED ON 23.03.2015 MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED AND THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL D EBTS MAY KINDLY BE REDUCED FROM THE BOOKS PROFITS U/S 115JB. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT IS REGARDING NOT GRANTIN G SUFFICIENT TIME TO IT TO FILE THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 29B. FROM T HE RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) ON 24.02.2015. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUESTED THE AP PELLANT TO FILE THE FORM 29B WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT TRACE BE CAUSE OF CHANGE IN THE PERSON LOOKING AFTER THE INCOME TAX M ATTER. THE APPELLANT FILED A REPLY ON 23.02.2015 REQUESTING TO GRANT TIME TO FILE FORM 29B. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSID ERING THE REPLY PASSED AN ORDER IMMEDIATELY ON THE NEXT WORKING DAY ON 24.02.2015 MENTIONING THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FILE FORM 29B. THE APPELLANT COULD TRACE THE SAME AND FILED ALONG WITH THE LETTER DT.23.03.2015, REQUESTING FOR AMENDING THE ORDER PA SSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R VIDE HIS LETTER DT.24.03.2015 REJECTED THE APPELLANT'S APPLICATION AGAINST WHICH THE PRESENT APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO, HAVING REQUESTED THE APPELLANT TO FILE THE FORM 29B , HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO FILE THE SAME. CONSIDERING MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 7 OF 12 THE SAME, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCO ME TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 29B. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9. THE PR.CIT, BANGALORE-1 DIRECTED THE AO U/S. 25 3(2) OF THE ACT TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER AND THE RELEVANT DIRECTION IS CONTAINED IN LAOR NO.169/PR.CIT-I/17-18 DATED 18.01.2018. THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL APPROVED IN THIS REGARD WERE AS FOLLOWS:- LAOR 169/PR.CIT-1/17-18 A.Y. 2012-13 M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD PAN: AACCB1412G A.O.: DCIT, C-1(1)(2), BENGALURU GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), IN SO FA R AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RE -COMPUTE THE INCOME TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.29B WHEN NO SUCH REPORT WAS FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCOME TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.29B THUS INDIRECTLY ALLOWING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT WHEN THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 4. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN TAKING FORM NO. 29B INTO CONSIDERATION WITHOUT CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT F ROM THE AO, THUS CLEARLY VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A. 5. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATI ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE ASSESSEE'S MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 8 OF 12 CASE IN ITA NO. 564/2008, DT: 23.06.2014 FOR THE A. Y. 2003-04, WHEREIN THE MATTER IN QUESTION WAS SETTLED IN FAVOU R OF THE REVENUE. 6. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER B E RESTORED. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, TO AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 10. BOTH THE AFORESAID APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE R EVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 23.01.2018. IN FORM 36 IN COL.(5), SEC TION OF THE ACT IN WHICH THE AO PASSED THE ORDER HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS ORDE R U/S. 143(3) PASSED ON 24.2.2015 AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT ON 2.3.2015. THE REGISTRY HAS ALLOTTED ITA NO.211/BANG/2018 FOR THE APPEAL U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, BUT IN WHICH GROUNDS OF APPEAL APPROVED BY THE PR.CIT AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 154 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PLACED. SIMILAR LY, IN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THE 143(3) PROCEEDIN GS HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED. 11. THE APPEALS WERE HEAD AND AN ORDER DATED 8.6.20 16 WAS PASSED IN WHICH THE APPEAL WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF DIRECTI ON OF CIT(A) DIRECTING THE AO TO CONSIDER FORM 29B AND CONSIDERING THE GRIEVAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF FORM 29B WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBU NAL BY OBSERVING THAT NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE AND THIS DIRE CTIONS ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 7 AND 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THIS DI SPUTE ARISES OUT OF THE 154 PROCEEDINGS. 12. AS FAR AS DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO 143(3) PROCEED INGS ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME IS WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF THE DIRE CTION OF THE CIT(A) TO EXCLUDE THE PROVISION FOR ESTIMATED VALUE IN SCRAPP ED ASSETS/EROSION IN THE MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 9 OF 12 VALUE OF FAULTY AND DISMANTLED ASSETS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,73,02,330. THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE IMPUG NED ORDER IN PARA 3 & 4, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL CHOSE TO FOLLOW THE ORDER O F HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 13. IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESSEE HA S POINTED OUT THE FOLLOWING AS APPARENT MISTAKES:- I) INCORRECT MENTION OF APPEAL NO. AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT: 4. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA NO.211/BANG/2018 HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN PAGE 2 PARA 2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATE TO CO NSIDERATION OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.29B. HOWEVER, IN PARA 3 AND 4 AT PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE ORDER, THE ISSUE REGARDING PROVISION M ADE DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSET HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. 5. WHEREAS, IN ITA NO.212/BANG/2018, THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS REGARDING EROSION OF VALUE OF AS SETS WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED AT PAGE 5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. TH ESE GROUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE CAPTION ITA 212/BANG/2018 . 6. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND DECISION OF THE ITAT HAVE JUMBLED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION T HAT THE DECISION ARRIVED AT BY THE ITAT IS INCORRECT WITH REGARD TO EROSION OF VALUE OF FAULTY AND DISMANTLED ASSETS, IT IS REQUESTED TH AT THE ORDER BE SUITABLY RECTIFIED. THIS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND CALLS FOR NO EXAMINATION OF FACTS AFRESH. 14. AS FAR AS THE AFORESAID GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN MENTIONI NG THE APPEAL NO. AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THIS IS FOR THE REASON STATED IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPH OF THIS ORDER. IN SHORT, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVE NUE IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT WAS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED THE AO MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 10 OF 12 TO CONSIDER THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 29B AND DECIDE THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION OF RS.80,18,90,736 BEING THE EXCESS PROVI SION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS CREDITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. THIS H AS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS CLARIFICATION SHOULD BE SUFFICIE NT AND WILL ADDRESS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE PROJECTED IN THE MISCELLA NEOUS PETITION. 15. THE NEXT GRIEVANCE PROJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,73,02,330 IN RESPECT O F PROVISION MADE FOR ESTIMATED VALUE OF SCRAPPED ASSETS/EROSION IN THE V ALUE OF FAULTY AND DISMANTLED ASSETS. AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, THE TR IBUNAL FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. IT IS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS PETITION THAT PRIOR TO THE DECISIO N RENDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE RE WAS ANOTHER DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT V. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. [2012] 17 TAXMANN.COM 15 (KAR) , WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT TOOK A VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AFORESAID DECISION WAS ALSO FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARN ATAKA IN THE CASE OF KIRLOSKAR SYSTEMS LTD. IN ITA NO.188/2013 DATED 28. 10.2013. IT IS THEREFORE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE ASSESSEES O WN CASE WAS PER INCURIAM AND THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD (SUPRA) , RATHER THAN THE DECISION RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSE E PROJECTED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE AS SESSEES OWN CASE. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESS EE WITH REGARD TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF YOKOGAWA MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 11 OF 12 INDIA LTD (SUPRA) IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THAT DOES NOT GIVE RISE T O ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUN AL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ISSUES ARE DEBATABLE. IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 254( 2) OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. MOREOVER, TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PL EA OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND ACCORDINGLY THE PLEA IS REJECTED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS PA RTLY ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF CLARIFICATION WITH REGARD TO MIXING UP OF THE DECISION ON GROUNDS RELATING TO APPEAL ARISING OUT OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED AS ARISING IN THE APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( A.K . GARODIA ) ( N.V . VASUDEVAN ) ACCOU NTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 7 TH JUNE, 2019. / D ESAI S MURTHY / MP NO.4/BANG/2019 PAGE 12 OF 12 COPY TO: 1. APPL ICAN T 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT , BANG ALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.