Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 784 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - Provision for bad debts - HELD THAT:- AO framed the assessment pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal wherein it was held that the use of the word “any” before the words “provision for bad and doubtful debts’’ would indicate that nomenclature under which the provision is made, may not be a critical factor in determining the allowance. Once a provision, under whatever name, is debited in the profit and loss account, then it is can be allowed, provided it is within the limits specified. None of the lower authorities had carefully gone into nature of the debits. It was for the assessee to show that these were indeed provisions for bad and doubtful debts. Accordingly, the matter was restored back to AO for fresh adjudication. Pursuant to the same, Ld. AO has accepted both the provisions as provisions made u/s 36(1)(viia) and re-work the deduction. CIT has opined that provision against standard asset could not be considered as provision u/s 36(1)(viia) - Regarding reserve for short provision for waiver of loans, it was held that the government could not be held to be doubtful debtor and therefore, the provision so made could not be considered as provision u/s 36(1)(viia). So far as the provision against standard asset is concerned, we find that the assessee is classifying the debt asset as per RBI mandate and making provisions against the same at specified rates. The assessee is required to make general provision against standard asset also since there would always be an inherent risk of even standard debts going bad in future. It could also be seen that Ld. Pr. CIT has referred to contrary decisions of Tribunal and accordingly, it could be said that the issue was a debatable one. The debatable issues, in our considered opinion, could not be subjected to revision. When Ld. AO has adopted one of the possible views which is not contrary to any law, the revision of the same could not be held to be justified. Therefore, the impugned order, to that extent, stands quashed for all the years under consideration. Reserve for short provision for waiver of loans - We concur that government could not be held to be doubtful debtor and therefore, the provision so made could not be considered as provision u/s 36(1)(viia). Even as per assessee’s submissions, this provision has been reversed in subsequent year and offered to tax. The Ld. AO has failed to consider this aspect and therefore, the revision of the order, to that extent, is upheld. Our observations, as above, shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the assessee is free to substantiate his claim, to that extent. The impugned order stand modified accordingly. The appeal stand partly allowed. Reserve for DCB difference - same was considered by Ld. AO as provision for the purpose of computation u/s 36(1)(viia) - This amount represents fraudulent transactions done by certain staff members. This is stated to be a recoverable amount and not bad debt of loans and advances disbursed to the customers. CIT observed that the same do not qualify for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia). From the stated facts itself, we prima face concur that the provision so made could not be considered as provision for bad debts u/s 36(1)(viia). Therefore, the revision of the order, to that extent, is to be upheld. AO is directed to carry out the directions given in impugned order and re-adjudicate. The assessee is free to agitate the issue. The appeal stand partly allowed.
|