Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HONBLE
O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3 Mumbai dated 13.06.2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
The only issue in the appeal of the assessee is in respect of confirming the addition of ₹.1,91,32,172/- made by the Assessing Officer towards contingent provision for standard assets.
(A.Y: 2013-14) The Greater Bombay Co-op Bank Ltd., 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that assessee though in the original return of income it had claimed contingent provision for standard assets as deduction, in the revised return the assessee has withdrawn the claim and computed the loss at ₹.1,18,37,283/-. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer while computing the income of the assessee started with this figure of loss i.e. ₹.1,18,37,283/- and arrived at income of ₹.3,69,72,751/- by making various additions/disallowances. Therefore, it is submitted that since the Assessing Officer as acted on revised computation of income wherein the assessee has already withdrawn the contingent provision for standard assets, once again disallowing the said provision for standard assets amounts to double disallowance and therefore the Authorities below are not justified in disallowing the same While completing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act.
Ld. DR submitted that the arguments of the assessee were considered by the Ld.CIT(A) and sustained the disallowance and he vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the computation of income filed by the assessee, original as well as revised computations. On a perusal of the original and (A.Y: 2013-14) The Greater Bombay Co-op Bank Ltd., first revised computations, we find that the assessee claimed deduction for contingent provision for standard assets. However, we find that from the second revised computation of total income that the assessee withdrawn his claim and computed net loss at ₹.1,18,37,283/- and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by starting the computation of income with this figure and by making certain additions arrived at income of ₹.3,69,72,750/-, while arriving at this income the Assessing Officer once again disallowed and added back provision for standard assets amounting to ₹.1,91,32,172/-. When the Assessing Officer acted upon the second revised return wherein the assessee withdrawn his claim once again disallowing the provision for standard assets while computing the income by the Assessing Officer amount to double disallowance. This aspect of the matter has been loss sight by the lower authorities. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that when the Assessing Officer started to compute the income by taking the loss as declared by the assessee in the second revised computation, there shall not be any further disallowance of provision for standard assets as the assessee had already withdrawn the claim and computed the loss at ₹.1,18,37,283/-. In the circumstances, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the original as well as the revised returns and compute the (A.Y: 2013-14) The Greater Bombay Co-op Bank Ltd., income of the assessee in accordance with law, keeping in view our above observations.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 27th June, 2018.