ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

ITA 347/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 February 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate its claims regarding bad and doubtful debts and other provisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative bank, claimed deductions for provisions for bad and doubtful debts and other provisions under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed these deductions, leading to a significant increase in the assessee's taxable income. The CIT(A) partly allowed/dismissed the appeals, and the assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the allowability of deductions claimed by the assessee for provisions for bad and doubtful debts and other provisions under Section 36, specifically whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36,Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 36(1)(viia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Deependra Mohan, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, PCIT, DR
Hearing: 19/02/2026Pronounced: 19/02/2026

PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2025passed in appeal No. CIT(A), Gwalior/10104/2016-17 and order dated 24.03.2025 passed in appeal No. CIT(A), Gwalior/10709/2019- 20by Ld. CIT(A) NFACrespectively under section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively.

2.

At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that the papers for filing this appeal were

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36

All 261 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →