M/S.KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

Appellant by: ----- None ----- Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 18 .01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 29.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: This is a set of two Appeals by the Assessee directed against separate Orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram [CIT(A)] dated 19.11.2019, dismissing the assessee’s appeals contesting it’s assessments u/s. 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2011- 12 and 2013-14, vide orders dated 28.10.2016 and 17/3/2016 respectively; the order for AY 2011-12 being under reassessment proceedings. The appeals raising common issue/s, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order.

3.1 We may, nevertheless; our order being appealable, without prejudice to our finding the appeal as not maintainable, consider the appeal on merits as well. Condonation being one of the reasons therefor, the same, as afore-stated, is a result of a positive, conscious decision, and we may not be for that reason construed as having 2 (AY : 2013-14) Kollam District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, Circle - 1 condoned the delay. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC). In the facts of the case, which stands also applied in K.H. Traders v. CIT [2013] 351 ITR 1 (Ker), the appeal was decided in the first instance by the first appellate authority on merits, oblivious of the delay attending its filing. The restoration thereto for considering the same, challenged on the ground of the appeal having been already decided, did not find acceptance by the Hon’ble Apex Court, explaining that an order dismissing an appeal as barred by time is also an order disposing the appeal, since admitted, passed in exercise of the appellate power. That is, there is no concept of deemed condonation under the Act.

3.2 The only issue raised in the appeals is the admissibility of the claim for deduction in respect of provision for standard assets, claimed in the sum of Rs.100.54 lakhs and Rs. 76.12 lakhs for the two successive years respectively. We are unable to fathom the provision of law under which the claim/s has been made; the assessee having been allowed deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, which is the only provision allowing deduction in this respect to, inter alia, cooperative banks. Rather, the very fact that the assessee itself classifies the relevant assets as standard assets, i.e., not nonperforming assets (NPA) by definition, contradicts it’s stand of the same being a provision in respect of bad and doubtful debts, allowance of which, as afore-stated is to be, as indeed has been, allowed in terms of s. 36(1)(viia), restricting it, of course, to the actual provision made in accounts. We, accordingly, find no merit in the assessee’s case.

3.3 We decide accordingly.