DCIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. BADAUN ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD., BADAUN
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the
ld. PCIT(OSD), Moradabad dated 09.06.2015 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11.
The solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred
in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by restricting
the claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
[hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'] to the extent of the provisions for
bad and doubtful debts made in the books of accounts.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed
return of income electronically declaring total income of Rs.
4,25,860/- in the status of a co-operative society.
Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter
referred to as 'The Act'] was completely on 21.03.2013 at the returned
income. The assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,27,16,000/- on
account of provision for bad and doubtful debts in its profit and loss
account. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the
assessee claimed that deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act be allowed
to it on the basis of scheme contained in the section as well as the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Southern
Technologies Ltd 228 CTR 440 for which the assessee filed revised
computation.
The said claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the
ground that deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act can be claimed only
upto the limit of provision made and the assessee has furnished only a
revised computation of income without filing any revised return of
income.
The assessee challenged the assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and
reiterated its claim of deduction relying upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd
[supra].
After considering the facts and submissions and following the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra], the ld. CIT(A) allowed
the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee is entitled to
claim deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act @ 10% of aggregate rural
advance resulting into addition of Rs. 2,14,83,608/-.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of repetitive
notices since 14.02.2019. We decided to proceed exparte. The ld. DR
was heard at length who strongly supported the findings of the
Assessing Officer and read the relevant part of the assessment order.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the
authorities below. We have carefully perused the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies [supra].
We find that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not
rendered on the issue in appeal but on some other issue. Only a
passing reference has been made on the issue before us whereas the
decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, relied upon by
the Assessing Officer in the case of State Bank of Patiala 272 ITR 54 is
directly on the facts under consideration.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“Analysis of Section 36(1)(viia) Section 36(1)(vii) provides for a deduction in the computation of taxable profits for the debt established to be a bad debt.
Section 36(1)(viia) provides for a deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debt made by a Scheduled Bank or Non- Scheduled Bank in relation to advances made by its rural branches, of a sum not exceeding a specified percentage of the aggregate average advances by such branches. Having regard to the increasing social commitment, Section 36(1)(viia) has been amended to provide that in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debt made by a scheduled bank or a non-scheduled bank, an amount not exceeding a specified per cent of the total income or a specified per cent of the aggregate average advances made
by rural branches, whichever is higher, shall be allowed as deduction in computing the taxable profits.”
A perusal of the above shows that even the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has referred to the upper limit of the deduction and not the
quantum of deduction. Moreover, there is no finding anywhere in the
order as to whether deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act would be
allowed irrespective of the provision made in the books of account.
In our considered opinion, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court [supra] relied upon by the Assessing
Officer is directly on this point and the Hon'ble High Court has
categorically held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act would
be restricted to the amount of reserve created in the books of
account.
Therefore, reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Southern Technologies [supra] by the ld. CIT(A) is
misplaced and drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab
and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala [supra], we
set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and uphold the findings of the
Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.
5272/DEL/2015 is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 30.01.2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
[C.M. GARG] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 30th January, 2023
VL/
