DCIT, SHIMOGA vs. M/S VISL EMPLOYEES CO-OP BANK LTD., BHADRAVATHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1267/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2008-094 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in granting relief as the facts of the case were similar to those in the Supreme Court judgment of UCO Bank Vs CIT and other High Court and Tribunal decisions. The Revenue could not point out any distinguishing facts.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order granting relief to the assessee on additions made for interest accrued on Non-performing Assets (NPA). The CIT(A) allowed the assessee to follow a mixed system of accounting.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing relief on NPA interest and permitting a mixed system of accounting, considering established judicial precedents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B.’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath Kalmath, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Jeean J Neetalgi, Standing Counsel

O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM

This appeal is filed by the revenue and is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Davangere dated 26.02.2016 for A. Y. 2008-09

2.

The grounds raised by the revenue are as under:-

“ 1.The order of the CIT(A), Davangere, is opposed to the law and not on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) is not right in granting relief to the assessee on the addition made on account of interest accrued on Non-performing Assets(NPA). 3. The CIT(A) erred in coming to the conclusion that the assessee can follow mixed system of accounting.

4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the rationale of decision in the case of Hon’ble SC in Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577. RBI guidelines are only prudential norms and cannot overrule income recognition as per IT Act.

5.

For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order of the CT(A) may be reversed and that assessment order be reversed. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before hearing of the appeal”.

3.

The ld. DR of the revenue supported the assessment order, whereas the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). He also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of UCO Bank Vs CIT 237 ITR 889(SC).

He also submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Canfin Homes in of 2006(Kar.) is also followed by the ld. CIT(A). A specific query was raised by the Bench asking the learned DR of the revenue as to whether there is any difference in facts in the present case and in these cases, which are followed by the ld. CIT(A) being the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of UCO Bank Vs CIT (Supra) and the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Canfin Homes(Supra). It was also pointed out by the Bench that the ld. CIT(A) has also followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs HDFC Bank Ltd. although, no citation has been given by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has also followed the Tribunal order in the case of M/s Davangere Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. in ITA NO.9819/Bang/2012 for the assessment year 2010-11 and the relevant portion of the Tribunal order has been re- produced by the ld. CIT(A) in para-5b of his order. In reply, the ld. DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and the aforesaid cases which are followed by the ld. CIT(A). Under this factual and legal position, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A).

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the above captioned date.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →