Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

343 ITR 270Supreme Court of India2012#235 most cited

What is Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), the debt must be actually written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, distinct from merely making a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee bears the onus to satisfy the conditions under both Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act.

326

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT · Section 36(1)(vii) · Section 36(1)(viia) · bad debt deduction · actual write-off · provision for bad and doubtful debts · irrecoverable debt · Section 36(2) · banking companies · TRF Ltd distinguished · Southern Technologies Ltd followed

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT Circle-2(1), Trichy vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ction 36(1)(viia) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal had also discussed the issue in light of explanation (2) inserted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270, and held that for the purpose of deduction towards write off of non-rural debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, there is no need to adjust credit in the account of provision for bad and doubtful debts created in terms of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the :-32-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 as…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ction 36(1)(viia) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal had also discussed the issue in light of explanation (2) inserted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270, and held that for the purpose of deduction towards write off of non-rural debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, there is no need to adjust credit in the account of provision for bad and doubtful debts created in terms of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the :-32-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 as…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1418/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ction 36(1)(viia) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal had also discussed the issue in light of explanation (2) inserted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270, and held that for the purpose of deduction towards write off of non-rural debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, there is no need to adjust credit in the account of provision for bad and doubtful debts created in terms of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the :-32-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 as…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1121/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ction 36(1)(viia) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal had also discussed the issue in light of explanation (2) inserted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270, and held that for the purpose of deduction towards write off of non-rural debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, there is no need to adjust credit in the account of provision for bad and doubtful debts created in terms of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the :-32-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 as…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ction 36(1)(viia) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal had also discussed the issue in light of explanation (2) inserted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270, and held that for the purpose of deduction towards write off of non-rural debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, there is no need to adjust credit in the account of provision for bad and doubtful debts created in terms of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the :-32-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 as…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 792/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

…on of CBDT circular which mandate that the penalty proceedings should be initiated during the course of assessment proceedings itself. The circulars issued by CBDT have force of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs. CIT (343 ITR 270). Therefore, for this reason also, the penalty was not validly initiated and the penalty orders passed by Ld. Addl. CIT were bad-in-law. 4.7 Finally, the legal grounds urged by the assessee were allowed and consequently, the issue, on merits, was not dealt with. Similar adjudication was done in all the other appeals also. Aggrieved, the revenue i…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 791/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

…on of CBDT circular which mandate that the penalty proceedings should be initiated during the course of assessment proceedings itself. The circulars issued by CBDT have force of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs. CIT (343 ITR 270). Therefore, for this reason also, the penalty was not validly initiated and the penalty orders passed by Ld. Addl. CIT were bad-in-law. 4.7 Finally, the legal grounds urged by the assessee were allowed and consequently, the issue, on merits, was not dealt with. Similar adjudication was done in all the other appeals also. Aggrieved, the revenue i…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 790/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

…on of CBDT circular which mandate that the penalty proceedings should be initiated during the course of assessment proceedings itself. The circulars issued by CBDT have force of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs. CIT (343 ITR 270). Therefore, for this reason also, the penalty was not validly initiated and the penalty orders passed by Ld. Addl. CIT were bad-in-law. 4.7 Finally, the legal grounds urged by the assessee were allowed and consequently, the issue, on merits, was not dealt with. Similar adjudication was done in all the other appeals also. Aggrieved, the revenue i…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 789/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

…on of CBDT circular which mandate that the penalty proceedings should be initiated during the course of assessment proceedings itself. The circulars issued by CBDT have force of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs. CIT (343 ITR 270). Therefore, for this reason also, the penalty was not validly initiated and the penalty orders passed by Ld. Addl. CIT were bad-in-law. 4.7 Finally, the legal grounds urged by the assessee were allowed and consequently, the issue, on merits, was not dealt with. Similar adjudication was done in all the other appeals also. Aggrieved, the revenue i…

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 875/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09 Karnataka Bank Ltd. Near Mahaveer Circle Pumpwell Kankanady Vs. Mangaluru Dcit Karnataka 575 002 Mangalore Pan No.Aabct5589K Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Dated 27.9.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Is Bad Is Law & Against The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Remanding The Issue Back To The Ao For Verification. 2.1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Having Observed In His Order That All The Details Required To Comply With The Directions Of Itat Has Been Furnished By The Assessee Bank, Ought Not Have Remanded Back The Issue Again To Ao For Verification, Instead Of Allowing The Appeal In Favor Of The Assessee Bank. 2.2 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Not Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Learned Assessing Officer.: Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru Page 2 Of 6 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Is Beyond The Directions Given By The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…as traversed beyond the order of the ITAT. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru Page 4 of 6 2.5 He submitted that even on merits, this issue is decided in favour of the Assessee Bank by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). The Apex Court clearly held that non rural debts need not be adjusted against the provision u/s 36(1)(viia) as no deduction is allowed for non rural debts. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC on 26/05/2021 on the following grounds: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the deduction…