THE NASHIK MERCHANTS CO-OP BANK LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by CIT(A)-I, Nashik for A.Y. 2013-14.

25.09.2018 in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 and submitted the

issue raised in ground No.1 is covered and this Tribunal decided

similar issue and remanded to the file of AO for verification. Further,

he submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi in the case of Jain Co-operative Bank Limited and

referred to Page No.10 of the Paper Book. The Ld. D.R. Shri Pankaj

Garg did not controvert the same.

The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,27,19,962/- on account of

NPA write off of principal against the provisions made under the head

of bad & doubtful debts. The making of provision is reflected in profit

and loss account under schedule17 to an extent of Rs.10,45,82,151/-

out of which a provision made out for bad and doubtful debts for

Rs.9,18,04,101/- in the computation of income at Page 20 of Paper Book. We find that for A.Y. 2012-13 in assessee’s own case, this Tribunal remanded the issue to the file of AO for his consideration for

a limited purpose for verification of details. The Co-ordinate Bench of

the Tribunal opined that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court

of Delhi in the case of Jain Co-operative Bank Ltd., (supra) which held

that whenever the bank writes off an amount is entitled to get

deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act, further, the said amount is taxable

at the time of recovery. The provisions of (viia)a to sub-clause 1 of

Section 36 of the Act explains that the deduction is available in respect

of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by a Co-operative

Bank. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the issue is settled by the

decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jain Co-

operative Bank Ltd., (supra), we hold that the assessee is entitled to

get deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Act. The impugned order of

CIT(A) is justified. Thus, ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

account of claim of bonus in the facts and circumstances of the case.

We find that assessee claimed to have paid an amount of

Rs.82,25,500/- under the head ‘bonus’ to its employees before the due

date for filing of return of income and the details of which are placed

on record at Page Nos.22 and 24 wherein we find the assessee paid

Rs.81,87,098/- (Rs.78,88,109/- and Rs.2,98,989/- on 23.09.2013 and

25.09.2013) respectively as against the above claimed amount. We

hold that the assessee is entitled to get allowance to an extent of

Rs.81,87,098/-. The fact remains admitted the information provided

under page Nos.22 and 24 of the Act were not before the AO during the

course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, taking into

consideration the submissions of the Ld.A.R. and Ld. D.R. we deem it

proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for his fresh

consideration for verification of details. Thus, ground No.2 raised by

the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 8th day of November, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (D. KARNUKARA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 8th November, 2019. Yamini

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. CIT(A)-1, Nashik. 4. Pr.CIT-1, Nashik. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी”/ DR, ITAT, “B” Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स �या // / TRUE COPY / / // True Copy //

व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.