TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer in the hands of the assessee by making various types of additions. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the said assessment order was partly allowed. For the sake of convenience, we have tabulated below the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the decision taken by the Ld. CIT(A). Decision of the Ld. CIT(A) Sl. No. Additions made by AO Amount Confirmed Set Aside Deleted 1. Bad debts 164786282 _/ 2. Bad debts (included in other expenditure) 2009943 _/ 3. Pension payment 34800000 _/ 4. Amortisation of premium on purchase of investments 84290000 _/ 5. Revaluation loss in unquoted share 138253 _/ 6. Disallowance u/s. 14A on Dividend Income 317585 _/ 7. Unclaimed overdue deposits 488265 _/ 8. Surplus on sale of Jewellery 253161 _/ 9. Excess cash 67980 _/ 10. Bond Issue Expenses 3057979 _/ 11. Depreciation in "Held to Maturity" investments 350000 _/ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posits would continue to remain as its liability until it is repaid to the concerned depositor. However, the Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee stands enriched by the unclaimed deposits. Accordingly, the AO treated the unclaimed deposits that were so categorised during the year under consideration, as the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition with the following observations:- "I have considered the submission of the Assessing Officer and the appellant. I find that unclaimed deposits are form part of the bank deposits as reflected in the Balance sheet and have not been appropriated towards profits or income of the bank in the P&L A/c. In my opinion, merely stating that by "applying the general principles laid down in CIT vs. TV Sundaram Iyengar 222 ITR 344, the amount of Rs. 4,88,265/- is brought to tax", will not make this amount taxable. It cannot be treated as income of the bank unless it has accrued to the bank or has it been received by the bank as its income. I also find that the AO has not established that there is profit chargeable to tax in terms of section 41 of IT Act. In this context, no general principles as laid down in 222 ITR 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts do not constitute the income of the bank. Income has neither accrued nor has been received by the Bank u/s. 6 of the IT Act. In view of the above factual and legal positions, this addition is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed". 8. However, we notice that the Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the assessee's own case in the order passed for assessment year 2005-06, referred supra, in paragraphs 13 - 15 of its order. We have carefully considered the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) and notice that the decision rendered by him is in accordance with the view expressed by the Tribunal in the assesssee's own case for assessment year 2005-06. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 9. The next issue relates to the disallowance of surplus realised on sale of jewellery amounting to Rs. 2,53,161/-. The assessee bank is advancing money on the security of gold. When the borrower fails to liquidate the loan, the assessee-bank auctions the pledged gold and uses the proceeds to recover the amount lent by it. In some cases, the amount realised on sale of gold would be more than the outstanding loan balanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t issue. The Tribunal also held that the repayment of the surplus is made in any of the subsequent year, then such payment would qualify for deduction in that year. 11. Since the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has already taken a particular view on the issue under consideration, it may not be proper for us to differ with it. Accordingly, consistent with the view taken by the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case relating to the assessment year 2005-06, referred supra, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the addition made by the AO on this issue. 12. The next issue relates to the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground of delayed remittances of TDS amount into the Central Government account. The Ld. CIT(A) noticed that all the deducted amounts except two small amounts of Rs. 550/- and 400/- had been remitted to the Central Government on or before the last day of the previous year. The above said two amounts which were deducted on 02.06.2005 and 04.08.2005 respectively were remitted into the Government account only on 04.04.2006, i.e., after the expiry of the financial year. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) granted relief in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee with regard to "Pension payments" has already been disposed of in the earlier paragraph. The remaining grounds raised by the assessee relate to the following issues:- (a) Disallowance of Bad debts - Rs.16,47,86,282/- (b) Disallowance of Revaluation loss in unquoted shares - Rs.1,38,253/- (c) Disallowance u/s 14A on dividend income - Rs.3,17,585/- (d) Addition of Excess cash found - Rs.67,980/- (e) Disallowance of Bond issue expenses - Rs.30,57,979/- (f) Disallowance of Depreciation on "Held to maturity" investments - Rs.3,50,000/- 17. The first issue relates to the disallowance of claim of bad debts amounting to Rs. 16.47 crores. Both the parties agreed that the issue needs re-examination at the end of the AO, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the assessee's own case in I.T.A. No. 114/2011 on this issue. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the issue afresh in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred supra. 18. The next issue relates to the disal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t issue relates to the addition of excess cash of Rs. 67,980/-. The facts relating to the same are explained in brief. The cashier of all branches has to tally the receipts and payments of cash of each day with the record maintained by the Accountant. Sometimes, it so happens that the cash balance physically available with the cashier may exceed the cash balance that should be available with him. This may so happen for various reasons. To name few, the customer might have remitted more than what was actually mentioned in the challan or the cashier might have disbursed lesser amount than that mentioned in the cheque leaf. The banks usually treat the "Excess cash" as its liability, as the bank may receive claim from the concerned party at any point of time. However, the AO took the view that the same represents income of the assessee and the said view was also upheld by Ld CIT(A). 22. We notice that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in its order dated 11-02- 2011 passed in the assessee's own case in I.T.A. No. 10/coch/2009 relevant to the assessment year 2005-06 has upheld the addition of excess cash found with the assessee in paras 7 to 8.2 of the order. Since the Tribunal ha....