TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f clause (f) of section 43B. It is not the case of assessee that payment was made for provision of leave encashment - Decided in favour of revenue. Allowance of claim towards provision for bad and doubtful debts - Held that:- We find that as per assessment order, it is the objection of the AO that the details as per requirement of Rule 6ABA are not furnished before him. As some details are made available before us, but as per the certificate given in the PB, all these details were filed before the CIT (Appeals) and the same were not filed before the AO. We also find that no remand report has been obtained by the ld. CIT (Appeals) from the AO. Under these facts, we find force in the contention of the ld. DR of Revenue that this matter should go back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision after obtaining remand report from the AO on this issue. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) on this issue and restore the matter back to his file for a fresh decision in light of our above observations, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.. Disallowance made with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. v. UOI, 292 ITR 470 but this judgment has been stayed by the Hon ble Apex Court as per judgment dated 8.9.2008. He submitted a copy of the same and urged that under these facts, the ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in following this judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. v. UOI (supra). He also placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. ACIT in ITA No.2559/Del/2013 dated 31.10.2013 (copy furnished) and submitted that as per this Tribunal s order also, the judgment of Hon ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. v. UOI (supra) cannot be followed, as per which it was held that amendment to section 43B by way of insertion of clause (f) is unconstitutional. It was submitted that under these facts, clause (f) of section 43B has to be applied in the present case and as a consequence, deduction is not available on account of leave encashment provision because the same was not paid in the present year. 4. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of ld. CIT (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ground No.3 is as under:- 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim towards provision for bad and doubtful debts without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not furnished complete details towards its claim and the learned CIT (A) erred in relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT, 343 ITR 270 without appreciating the fact that the said decision was rendered in context to section 36(1) (vii). 7. It was submitted by the ld. DR of Revenue that the details available on pages 1 to 7 of the Paperbook were not available before the AO and they were submitted for the first time before the CIT (Appeals) and no remand report has been obtained by the CIT (Appeals) from the AO. He also submitted that as per pages 5 6 of the assessment order, it was stated by the AO that the details required as per Rule 6ABA were not furnished before him. The ld. DR of Revenue submitted that even if details submitted before the CIT(Appeals) which are available on pages 1 to 7 of PB are to be considered as details in compliance of Rule 6ABA, the matter should go back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision after obta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ld. CIT (Appeals) on this issue. 13. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per page 9 of PB, there is a letter dated 24.7.2010 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services in respect of revision of pay allowances of all Regional Rural Banks employees w.e.f. 1.11.2007. So, on the basis of communication received from Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, the Board of assessee bank as per its Resolution dated 31.8.2010 has decided to make payment of arrears for the period from 1.11.2007 to 31.7.2010. No doubt, this date of Board Resolution and the letter from Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance is subsequent to the present accounting year i.e., accounting year 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11 but it is also true that these dates are prior to the date of filing of return of income by the assessee and therefore, the liability has crystallised prior to the date of filing of return of income. In our considered opinion, under these facts, provision should be made in the accounts for the year which were not finalised at that point of time i.e., crystallisation of liability. So under these facts, we find no reason to interfere in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank reported in 187 ITR 541 in para 2(vii) of CBDT s Instruction NO.17 of 2008. 7.3 The learned counsel for the assessee supported the finding of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 4,84,11,629 made by the Assessing Officer in respect of amortization of premium on purchase of Govt. securities in accordance with the CBDT s Instruction No.17 vide para 2(vii) dt.26.11.2008. The learned counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sir M. Vishveshwaraya Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. JCIT in ITA No.1122/Bang/2010 dt.11.5.2012 ( a copy of which is placed on record.) The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to para 4 to para 8 of this order in which an identical issue on amortization of premium on investments was exhaustively considered by this Tribunal after which it held that the assessee was entitled to such deduction. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the assessee prayed that since the decision of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to its case, and is in its favour, Revenue s appeal on this point i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g regard to the CBDT Instruction No.17 of 2008 dated.26.11.2008 as reproduced herein above, the premium paid on such government securities is required to be amortized over the period remaining to maturity .......... (iii) In the case of Corporation Bank v. ACIT, M'lore in ITA.112/Bang/2008 (Bang), for the assessment year 2004-05, the earlier bench had also held a similar view. In the light of the above discussion and the case laws discussed supra, taking into account the totality of the facts and materials, we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to claim this deduction and hence we allow the grounds of the assessee relating to this issue. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sir M. Vishveswaraya Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction on account of amortization of premium on Govt. securities and therefore no interference is called for in the order of the learned CIT(A). Consequently, the grounds raised by Revenue on this issue are dismissed. 17. Subsequently for AY 2009-10 in assessee s own case, similar issue was raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
