THE MALKAPUR URBAN CO-OPT .BANK LTD,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALOLA CIRCLE,AKOLA, AKOLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 334/NAG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 October 2023AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of provisions for bad and doubtful debts required verification of the assessee's books of accounts in light of Supreme Court rulings. The disallowance of depreciation on software was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative bank, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed provisions for bad and doubtful debts and depreciation on software. The CIT(A) confirmed these disallowances.

What were the issues?

Whether provisions made on standard advances qualify as provisions for bad and doubtful debts, and the allowability of depreciation on software.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subramanyam
Hearing: 16.10.2023Pronounced: 18.10.2023

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nagpur [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 08.05.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Co- operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is formed for the purpose of banking business. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 22.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.8,00,56,920/-.

2 Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Akola Circle, Akola (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 18.02.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.8,66,38,046/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs.64,91,102/- u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act on the ground that the appellant had not created provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the depreciation on software of Rs.90,024/-.

3.

Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order after calling for the remand report, confirmed the disallowance rejecting the contention of the appellant that the provisions of Rs.40,00,000/- made on the standard advance should be considered as provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.90,024/- after calling for the remand report.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

5.

When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this matter after hearing the ld. CIT-DR.

6.

The first issue in ground of appeal

relates to the disallowance of provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer had made the disallowance of provisions for bad and doubtful debts of Rs.64,91,102/- primarily on the ground that no provisions for bad and doubtful debts was created by the assessee. It is the contention of the assessee that provisions created on standard advance should be considered as provisions for bad and doubtful debts. It is settled position of law that debiting the Profits & Loss Account by provisions for bad and doubtful debts and reducing the same from the sundry debtors in the Balance Sheet constitutes write off in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (SC).

7. On mere reading of the orders of the lower authorities, it would reveal that addition was made on the ground that no provisions was created, which is contrary to the material on record. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of allowability of bad and doubtful debts after due verification of the entries in the books of accounts keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (SC). Thus, the first issue in ground of appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(viia)

All 877 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(viia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →