TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ATAKA HIGH COURT] after taking note of Section 145 of the Act has held that once a particular asset is shown as non performing asset then the assumption that it is not yielding any revenue. When an asset is not yielding any revenue, the question of showing that revenue and paying tax would not arise. The contentions, which are sought to be raised by learned counsel for the revenue do not arise for consideration in the context of substantial question of law, which has been framed by this court. The concurrent findings have been recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as tribunal in this regard, which cannot be termed as perverse. Decided in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A. NO. 264/2018 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2021 - HON B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revenue and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, in terms of the order passed in the said appeal, this appeal can be disposed of as the present appeal is between the same parties but for the assessment year 2010-11. 4. The learned counsel for the revenue did not dispute the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in ITA No.137/2015. The co-ordinate bench of this court in the said appeal in paragraphs 5 to 8 has held as under: 5. With regard to the second substantial question of law, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had claimed the benefit under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and the assessee has to first set off the bad debt written off against the provision made under Section 36(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not arise. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'UCO BANK VS. CIT', 237 ITR 889 SC, 'CIT VS. CANFIN HOMES LTD.', 347 ITR 382 (KAR), CIT VS. THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK IN ITA NO.471/2013 (KAR), CIT VIS THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK IN SLP NO.1066/2015 (SC) and 'UCO BANK VS. CIT', 360 ITR 567 (KOL). 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee had debited ₹ 1.5 Crores as provision for non performing asset but in the income computation sheet the same has not been added. The assessee was given an opportunity to explain why non perfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, which has been framed by this court. The concurrent findings have been recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as tribunal in this regard, which cannot be termed as perverse. It is also urged that reliance placed on decision of this court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. CANFIN HOMES LTD., 347 ITR 382 is of no assistance to the assessee as in the aforesaid decision, the effect of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act has not been considered. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that tribunal was justified in holding that accounting interest income on non performing asset on cash basis by the assessee though it was following mercantile system of accounting was correct since, once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank Ltd. supra. The tribunal in its order dated 10.10.2014 inter alia has held that though the assessee has used the nomenclature as provision for non performing assets but in pith and substance, the provision has been created for bad and doubtful debts and in doing so the assessee has followed the guidelines framed by Reserve Bank of India. The tribunal has therefore, affirmed the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. This court in Canfin Homes Ltd. supra after taking note of Section 145 of the Act has held that once a particular asset is shown as non performing asset then the assumption that it is not yielding any revenue. When an asset is not yielding any revenue, the question of showing that revenue and pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
