M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.168,26,95,438 and Rs.545,15,50,428 for assessment years 2009-2010 and 2017-2018, respectively.

The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.168,26,95,438 and Rs.545,15,50,428 for assessment years 2009-2010 and 2017-2018, respectively. The disallowance made by the A.O. was confirmed by the CIT(A) by following ITAT’s order in assessee’s own case in ITA No.673 & 674/Bang/2014 for assessment year 2009-2010 and ITA No.684/Bang/2014 for assessment year 2010-2011 (order dated 25.04.2018).

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR fairly admitted that the issue in question is covered against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal referred to in the impugned orders of the CIT(A). The learned Departmental Representative present was duly heard.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The learned AR has fairly admitted that the issue raised in these appeals are covered against the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal for assessment years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 (supra). In view of the admission by the learned Counsel for the assessee, we hold that the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(viia) of the I.T.Act by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.