2025 (12) TMI 152 - AT - Income Tax

Bad debt relief under Sections 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(vii) allowed from excess rural branch provision deductions

ITAT Cochin partly allowed the assessee-bank's appeal concerning deductions for bad debts. It held that deductions under s.36(1)(viia) and s.36(1)(vii) ... Deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - appellant had claimed a deduction in relation to the provisions made in its accounts for bad debts, particularly, in relation to the branches that were situated in rural areas - authorities below found that some of the branches were not situated in rural areas and disallowed the claim of the appellant in relation to those branches HELD THAT:- The deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) & 36(1)(vii) of the Act are separate and distinct as held in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. [2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT] The common ingredient required to be satisfied under the provisions of both the sections is creation of provision equivalent to the amount of claim. Therefore, the excess provision available on account of disallowance of provision for rural branches u/s. 36(1)(viia) can be very well be treated as available towards deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. This cannot be treated as a new claim, as the appellant-bank made claim for deduction of bad debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act in the return of income. The ratio laid down in the case of Goetze India P. Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] has no application to the facts of the present case. At any rate, there is no bar on the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such claim for deduction for the first time in view of the decision of Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008 (4) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] In view of the settled position of law, the findings of the CIT(A) that the additional claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) cannot be entertained, is hereby reversed. Since the AO had no occasion to examine the satisfaction of conditions precedent for allowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, we remit the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to allow the additional claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) on being satisfied with the fulfillment of necessary conditions precedent as prescribed under the above section after due verification. Appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (1) Whether the portion of provision for bad and doubtful debts disallowed under Section 36(1)(viia) on account of reclassification of rural branches can be considered and allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. (2) Whether entertaining and granting such additional deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) at the appellate stage constitutes a 'new claim' barred by law, particularly in view of the decision in Goetze (India) P. Ltd. v. CIT. (3) Whether the matter should be remitted to the assessing authority to verify fulfillment of statutory conditions for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (1): Allowability under Section 36(1)(vii) of the disallowed portion of provision under Section 36(1)(viia) Legal framework (as discussed) The Court considered Sections 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT, holding that deductions under these two provisions are separate and distinct. The Court also noted the principle in Vijaya Bank v. CIT regarding write-off by debiting the profit and loss account and reducing loans and advances on the asset side as sufficient 'write-off'. Interpretation and reasoning (a) The Court noted that the assessee-bank created a provision for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 344.90 crores by debiting the profit and loss account and reducing the same from sundry debtors on the asset side of the balance sheet. (b) Out of this, a claim of Rs. 225.52 crores was made under Section 36(1)(viia), which was restricted by the assessing officer to Rs. 177.95 crores, primarily due to classification of branches based on the 2011 census and consequent treatment of certain branches as non-rural. (c) The Court held that, in view of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT, deductions under Sections 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(vii) are independent and distinct, though a common ingredient is creation of provision equivalent to the amount claimed. (d) On that basis, the Court held that the 'excess provision' that arose due to partial disallowance under Section 36(1)(viia) on account of reclassification of rural branches can be treated as available for claim under Section 36(1)(vii), as it represents provision created and written off in the manner contemplated in Vijaya Bank v. CIT. Conclusions The disallowed portion of the provision for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia), attributable to the reclassification of rural branches, can be considered for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), subject to satisfaction of the statutory conditions of that provision. Issue (2): Whether the additional deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) is a barred 'new claim' at appellate stage Legal framework (as discussed) The Court considered the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) P. Ltd. v. CIT and the High Court decisions in CIT v. Parabolic Springs Ltd. and CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders regarding the powers of appellate authorities to entertain additional claims. Interpretation and reasoning (a) The Court found that the assessee had already made a claim for deduction of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) in the original return of income. The present controversy concerned only the quantum and utilization of the same provision disallowed under Section 36(1)(viia) to support that claim. (b) On these facts, the Court held that treating the excess provision as supporting an enhanced or 'additional' quantum of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) does not amount to making a 'new' claim; it is a modification within an already existing head of claim. (c) The Court held that the decision in Goetze (India) P. Ltd. v. CIT, which restricts the assessing officer from entertaining fresh claims not made in the return except by way of revised return, has no application to the present case. (d) The Court further held, relying on CIT v. Parabolic Springs Ltd. and CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, that there is no bar on appellate authorities entertaining such claims for the first time, even assuming they were 'new', as the restriction in Goetze (India) P. Ltd. applies only to the assessing officer and not to appellate fora. Conclusions (i) The enhanced deduction sought under Section 36(1)(vii) based on the disallowed portion of the provision under Section 36(1)(viia) does not constitute a new claim barred by Goetze (India) P. Ltd. v. CIT. (ii) Even otherwise, appellate authorities are legally competent to entertain such claims, and the finding of the first appellate authority that the additional claim under Section 36(1)(vii) could not be entertained is reversed. Issue (3): Remand to assessing officer for verification of statutory conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) Interpretation and reasoning (a) The Court observed that the assessing officer had not examined whether the conditions precedent for allowance of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) were fulfilled in relation to the amount representing the disallowed portion under Section 36(1)(viia). (b) Since availability of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) is contingent on satisfaction of those statutory conditions (including actual write-off in the books as understood in Vijaya Bank v. CIT), and there was no factual verification yet by the assessing officer, factual examination was necessary. Conclusions (i) The matter is remitted to the assessing officer to examine, verify, and determine whether the conditions precedent under Section 36(1)(vii) are satisfied in respect of the amount representing the disallowed provision under Section 36(1)(viia). (ii) The assessing officer is directed to allow the additional deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) upon being satisfied, after due verification, that the statutory conditions are fulfilled. (iii) On this basis, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.