SHIR DHOKESHWAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 86/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 August 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of the NPA provision would increase the assessee's business income, which would then qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, as per CBDT Circular No. 37/2016. Therefore, the PCIT's direction would be an academic exercise and not prejudicial to the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee debited a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) provision of Rs. 42,51,668/- in its Profit & Loss Account. The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to disallow this provision during the original assessment. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) directed the AO to revise the assessment order to disallow this provision.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's direction to disallow the NPA provision was prejudicial to the interest of revenue, considering the applicability of Chapter VI-A deductions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28,Section 43B,Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. Bhandari
For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Hearing: 08.08.2024Pronounced: 12.08.2024

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Dhokeshwar Gramin Vs. PCIT-1, Pune. Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 1, Takil Dhokeshwar, Parner, Ahmednagar- 414304. PAN : AACAS1229C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari Revenue by Shri Keyur Patel : Date of hearing : 08.08.2024 Date of pronouncement : 12.08.2024 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This is recalled matter. Vide order dated 12.06.2024 in M.A. No.258/PUN/2023 for the assessment year 2018-19 filed against the order of the Tribunal in dated 24.03.2023 (appeal filed by the assessee) was recalled for limited purpose to adjudicate the ground no.2 in respect of NPA provision of Rs.42,51,668/- debited in the Profit & Loss Account.

2.

LD counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that LD PCIT also directed to revise the assessment order on the basis of NPA provision of Rs.42,51,668/-, which was debited in the P&L Account, but in the original assessment order the AO failed to disallow the above provision as the same was not allowable as per section 28 to 43B of the IT Act, hence LD PCIT directed to disallow this NPA provision. LD counsel further submitted that the direction of LD PCIT to disallow the NPA provision will not increase the taxable income of the assessee. It was submitted that CBDT has issued Circular No.37/2016 dated 02-11-2016, wherein it was directed to allow chapter VIA deduction to the resultant income increased due to additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer during course of assessment proceedings. It was therefore submitted that the taxable income of the assessee will not increase even if the NPA provision of Rs.42,51,668/- is disallowed & added back to the income of the assessee, because the resultant business income will VIA deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. It was therefore requested before the bench to set-aside the order passed by LD PCIT u/s 263 of the IT Act.

3.

LD DR fairly accepted that the circular above referred is there & is applicable to the instant case.

4.

We have heard LD Counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on record. We find force in the arguments of the LD counsel that in the light of Circular No.37/2016 dated 02-11-2016, the assessee is entitled to claim chapter VIA deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act on the addition of Rs.42,51,668/- which is going to increase its business income, which is deductible u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the direction issued by LD PCIT in the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act will only result in an academic exercise & hence the order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We therefore set-aside the order passed by LD PCIT u/s 263 of the IT Act directing to revise the assessment order. Thus, the ground no.2 raised in the appeal is also allowed.

More judgments on Section 28

All 1,686 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →