TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .O. though has not mentioned the specific claim allowed in respect of the bad debts in the assessment order. But the fact remains that the A.O has issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on claim of bad debts and the explanations filed are demonstrated by the Ld.AR. Whereas the Pr.CIT has not considered the facts that the A.O has called for the information and the case was discussed and there cannot be any non application of mind by the A.O. We find that the A.O has considered one of the possible views based on the information and it is not necessary that the A.O should put all the discussions/observations in the assessment order. Further as per explanations (2) to sec 263 of the Act the authority has to invoke provisions only when there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that claim of allow ability of bad debts was verif ied and that the same issue was subject matter of appeal in earlier years and that the same having been allowed in earlier years by the CIT(A) and for assessment year 2011-12 the claim was allowed by Hon ble ITAT and as such the action u/s 263 Is uncalled for. c. The appellant submits that order u/s 263 needs to be cancel led. 2. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative bank engaged in the business of banking. The assessee has filed the return of income electronically on 30.09.2015 for the A.Y 2015-16 disclosing a total income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings that the bad debts claim issue has been verified year to year and deduction was allowed. But the Pr.CIT has dealt on the provisions of Sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and is of the opinion that the assessee has not followed procedure laid as per the provisions of Sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and the Auditors certificate in respect of bad debts was not provided. Hence the claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act should not be allowed. The Pr.CIT dealt on the explanation (2) to sec 263 of the Act and finally the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 19.12.2017 is set aside and directed the Assessing officer to reframe the assessment afresh and passed the order u/s 263 of the Act dated 24.03.2021. Aggrieved by the revision order, the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, contingent provision for standard asset and computer software. The Ld.AR emphasized that the Honble ITAT and CIT(A) in earlier years of has allowed the bad debts claim. 6. The assessee has furnished the details in the course of assessment in lieu of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and further the claim of the assessee has been accepted in earlier year. In case the claim was not allowed by the revenue, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Honble Tribunal and the directions are issued to the Assessing officer for allow ability of claim. The Ld. AR referred to page 13 of the paper book schedule VII-(c) were the bad and doubtful debts are reflected in comparison to the earlier year which cannot be doubted and the auditors cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
