TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii). 3. The revenue is in appeal in respect of following grounds: (i) Bad-debts written off. (ii) Allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(viii). (iii) Deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). (iv) Deletion of computation of book profit u/s 115JB. (v) About the deletion of addition u/s 14A. 4. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee is a public sector Bank and filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1054,85,28,225/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) and while making computation, the Assessing Officer (AO) made various addition under the different head vide assessment order dated 18.02.2013, against the addition made in the assessment order dated 18.02.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g necessary opportunity of being heard, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law". 8. We respectfully following the direction of co-ordinate bench also remand this issue to the file of AO to consider this issue in accordance with the direction in ITA No. 4678/Mum/2013. 9. The next issue for our consideration is claim/deduction u/s 36(1) (viii) of I.T.Act. 10. The AR of the assessee has argued that similar issue was raised by the assessee-Bank in respect of AY-2008-09 and the same was restored to the file of AO with the following direction in ITA No. 4678/Mum/2013. "Hence, in our view, the workings given by the assessee, AO and Ld CIT(A) on approximate basis cannot be approved. Accordingly, in our view, this i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd is squarely covered by the finding given in para 17 of the Tribunal order in ITA No. 4842/Mum/2013, wherein it is observed: "We notice that the Tribunal has allowed identical claim in the assessee's own case in AY 2007-08, vide its order dated 18.1.2003 passed in ITA Nos.6631/Mum/2010 & 6349/Mum/2010. We notice that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (343 ITR 270) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd (2012)(349 ITR 705). We also notice that the new Explanation 2, which covers both rural and non-rural advances, has been inserted under sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014 only and hence it cannot have retros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... require that the provision needs to be made only in the relevant previous year as could be clearly seen on comparative reading of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia)." "It is clear that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts should be allowed under section 36(1)(viia), to the extent of provision made and available in the books of account, whether made in the current previous year or in the preceding previous years as none of the lower authorities i.e. either Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue under consideration from this angel and as the entire facts are not available for us to adjudicate the issue. In the interest of substantial justice, the orders of the lower authorities are to be set aside and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of the assessee is dismissed." 19. Thus, respectfully following the order for earlier years and in view of the principle of consistency this ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. 20. The next ground for our consideration is in respect of deletion of addition u/s 14A of I.T. Act. 21. As we have already restored this issue to the file of AO in connected aapeal filed by assessee vide Appeal No. 1627/Mum/2014, in para 8 of this order with the direction to the AO to consider the same in accordance with the direction in ITA No. 4678/M/2013, hence this ground is allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for stati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|