PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., HOSHIARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/229/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01050054201924 July 2023Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. This was because the Revenue's counsel could not dispute the finality of the ITAT's earlier order dated 16.07.2018, which dealt with a similar issue for AY 2008-09 in the assessee's own case. The ITAT had, in its order dated 04.12.2018, relied on this prior decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal for AY 2012-13. The reasoning was that since the earlier decision had attained finality and covered the present issue, the Revenue's appeal lacked merit. The High Court affirmed the ITAT's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The ITAT, by its order dated 04.12.2018, had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an order dated 01.06.2015. The ITAT's decision was based on its earlier order dated 16.07.2018, passed in the assessee's (M/s. Hoshiarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.) own case for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. In that earlier order, the ITAT had allowed the assessee's claim for deduction towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viiia) and directed the maintenance of separate provision accounts. The ITAT's order dated 04.12.2018 also affirmed the allowance of Rs. 340 lacs for bad and doubtful debts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal against the order allowing the assessee's claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts, when the issue was covered by the Tribunal's own prior decision for AY 2008-09? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the ITAT's dismissal of its appeal was erroneous. However, the judgment notes that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was not able to dispute the fact that the earlier order for AY 2008-09 had attained finality. The Revenue did not present any arguments disputing the merits of the ITAT's decision or the applicability of the prior order. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(viiia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-229-2019 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:094981-DB -1-

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-229-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.07.2023 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar ....Appellant V/s. M/s. Hoshiarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Hoshiarpur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. **** Ritu Bahri, J. 1. The revenue has come up in appeal against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) passed in ITA No. 453(Asr)/2015 dated 04.12.2018, whereby appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 01.06.2015, has been dismissed. 2. While dismissing the appeal of the revenue vide order dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure A-3), the Tribunal has referred order dated 16.07.2018 passed in ITA Nos. 348/Asr/2011 & 399/Asr/2011 by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2008-09 wherein a similar issue was examined and it was held that the assessee bank shall maintain separate provision accounts for the two components. The assessee’s claim for deduction towards provision for bad and doubtful debts was allowed under Section 36(1)(viiia). The Tribunal, while dismissing appeal on 04.12.2018 (Annexure A-3), further observed that all write off of debts as bad and doubtful, i.e. in future, needless to add, would be by way of debit to the provision account, which is to be replenished, each year on the basis of DIVYANSHI 2023.08.02 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

ITA-229-2019 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:094981-DB -2- the parameters provided. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length, this Court had perused the order of the Tribunal dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure A- 3). While dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal has held that the issue with respect to maintainability of the assessee’s claim for provision of bad and doubtful debts, was covered by the Tribunal’s order dated 16.07.2018 passed in ITA Nos. 348/Asr/2011 & 399/Asr/2011) in the assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal in its order dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure A-3) had affirmed the order passed by the assessing officer whereby the assessee’s claim for bad and doubtful debts to the tune of Rs.340 lacs was allowed. Order dated 16.07.2018 was made basis to dismiss the appeal of revenue for the AY 2012-13 (Annexure A-2) by the Tribunal vide order dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure A-3) against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. Since learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the fact that the order dated 16.07.2018 for the AY 2008-09 has attained finality, there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. 5. Hence, appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 6. Pending application is disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 24.07.2023 (MANISHA BATRA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2023.08.02 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →