Tribunal sets aside issue for review, emphasizing actual income over book entries. Assessing Officer to reconsider.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes as the tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for further review to determine if the provision made for bad debt represented real income. The tribunal emphasized that income to be taxed should reflect actual income and not just book entries, providing the Assessee with an opportunity to substantiate their case. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the matter, particularly the amount of Rs. 2,40,61,848/-, before making a final decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Allowance of provision on doubtful debts
2. Allowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts
3. Allowance of reversal of amount on expenditure side by making a 'provision'

Issue 1: Allowance of provision on doubtful debts

The appeal was against the order of CIT-III, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2007-08. The CIT found the order passed by the Assessing Officer erroneous as it allowed provisions created on doubtful debts, which were not allowable under the IT Act. The CIT directed the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment order by enhancing the total assessed income with the amount of Rs. 41.41 lakhs. The AR of the assessee argued that the provision was made following RBI guidelines but the CIT held that provisions made were not allowable under the IT Act.

Issue 2: Allowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts

The CIT observed that the cooperative bank did not fall under the category eligible for claiming provisions under section 36(1)(viia) towards bad and doubtful debts. The CIT directed the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment order to enhance the amount of Rs. 18,43,318/- as the deduction claimed was not allowable. The AR of the assessee argued that the provision did not impact the profit & loss account but was for accounting purposes only.

Issue 3: Allowance of reversal of amount on expenditure side by making a 'provision'

Regarding the third point raised on the allowance of Rs. 2,40,61,848/- being a reversal of amount on the expenditure side by making a 'provision', the CIT found that cooperative banks were allowed to make provisions only from 2007 onwards. Therefore, the provision for bad debt was not allowable for the assessment year. The CIT directed the Assessing Officer to enhance the order by the amounts of Rs. 2,40,61,848/- and Rs. 18,43,318/-, both being provisions created.

The appellate tribunal heard the arguments of both parties and reviewed the records. It was noted that the Assessee did not claim a deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and excluded interest attributable to bad and doubtful debts by transferring it to a reserve for overdue interest. Citing relevant case laws, the tribunal emphasized that income to be taxed should represent real income and not merely book entries. The tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for further review to determine if the amount of Rs. 2,40,61,848/- represented real income, providing the Assessee with a reasonable opportunity to support their case. Ultimately, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

---