TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for filing 19.02.2011 to 20.02.2011 Saturday & Sunday 21.02.2011 to 25.02.2011 The papers were being processed at the undersigned's office for filing. 26.02.2011 to 27.02.2011 Saturday & Sunday 28.02.2011 to 03.03.2011 The papers were being processed at the undersigned's office for filing 04.03.2011 The papers are being filed for second appeal Within a span of one week this office received 93 appellate orders from the office of ld. CIT(A.) relating to several months batches apart from having 19 old Appellate Order of which Appeal Scrutiny reports are being prepared and sent to the office of CIT, Kol-II, Kolkata. That the delay is not deliberate and the respondent does not gain in any manner by delay committed. 2. We have considered the submissions made in the affidavits noted above and are of the opinion that on account of administrative exigencies, the delay was caused. We, therefore, condone the same and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 3. First we take up the I.T.A. No. 367/Kol./2011. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Kolkata dated 12.03.2010 for the assessment year 2007-08.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year in respect of the disputed issues in the case of every assessee. If, in the case of an assessee, the disputed issues arise in more than one assessment year, appeal, can be filed in respect of such assessment year or years in which the tax effect in respect of the disputed issues exceeds the monetary limit specified in para 3. No appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in para 3. In other words, henceforth, appeals can be filed only with reference to the tax effect in the relevant assessment year. However, in case of a composite order of any High Court or appellate authority, which involves more than one assessment year and common issues in more than one assessment year, appeal shall be filed in respect of all such assessment years even if the 'tax effect' is less than the prescribed monetary limits in any of the year(s), if it is decided to file appeal in respect of the year(s) in which 'tax effect' exceeds the monetary limit prescribed. In case where a composite order/judgment involves more than one assessee, each assessee shall be dealt with separately. 6. In a case where appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department. 9. The proposal for filing Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court should, in all cases, be sent to the Directorate of Income-tax (Legal & Research), New Delhi and the decision to file Special Leave Petition shall be in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice. 10. The monetary limits specified in para 3 above shall not apply to writ matters and direct tax matters other than Income-tax, filing of appeals in other direct tax matters shall continue to be governed by relevant provisions of statute and rules. Further, filing of appeal in cases of Income-tax, where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of registration of trusts or institutions under section 12A of the IT Act, 1961, shall not be governed by the limits specified in para 3 above and decision to file appeal in such cases may be taken on merits of a particular case. 11. This instruction will apply to appeals filed on or after 09.02.2011. However, the cases where appeals have been filed before 09.02.2011 will be governed by the instructions on this su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ltivate, manufacture tea, tea seed, coffee, cinchona and to carry on the business of tea in all its branches and to buy sell or deal in such produces". He noticed that there were as many as 39 other objects in the Memorandum of Association which may be conducted if the same were incidental or ancillary to the attainment of the main object. With reference to Memorandum of Association, he pointed out that there was nothing in MOA to constitute money lending business. From the details, he concluded that in order to claim deduction for bad and doubtful loan advance, the nature of business had been claimed as money lending. He, therefore, held that interest income as earned from utilizing idle money was nothing but income from other sources. The other receipts were income other than profit from growing and manufacturing of tea which he treated as miscellaneous income. 11. Ld. CIT(Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention observing at paras 4 to 6 as under :- "4. I have perused the order and the submission carefully. I have also seen assessment orders and appellate orders of earlier years, from where it is evident that the company is continuously carrying on the business of money len....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accepted under section 143(1). In scrutiny assessment, in assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer examined in detail re-computation of income filed by assessee in which assessee had written off debit balance of Rs.1,20,06,153/-. The same is reproduced hereunder :- "Money lending business Interest income Rs.91,89,155/- Bad debt recovered Rs. 2,89,000/- Addl. Interest Rs. 4,482/- Rs.94,82,637/- Less : extra interest provided Rs. 1,59,762/- Rs.93,22,875/- Less : debit balance written off Rs.1,20,06,153/-" Therefore, the assessee's contention of money lending has consistently been accepted by the Department and, therefore, in the absence of new facts being brought on record, on principle and consistency assessee's claim was rightly accepted by ld. CIT(Appeals). We, therefore, confirm the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and reject this ground of appeal taken by the Revenue. 14. Ground No. 2 of this appeal reads as under :- "That on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A.)-IV, Kolkata has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,37,926/- on account of nursery expenses since the assessee has considered plantation as f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We find Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kanoi Estates Private Limited has observed as under :- "3. After hearing both the sides, it appears that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 1340/Kol/1996 in the case of DCIT -vs.- M/s. Binaguri Tea Co., where it has been held as under :- "After hearing both the parties, we find that the Tribunal vide its order dated 24.03.2000 in ITA No. 3198/Cal./1992 for the assessment year 1990-91 in the case of the assessee itself, observed that the provisions of section 33A and Rule 8(2) were applicable simultaneously and hence the provisions of section 33A should not come in the way of allowance of the revenue expenses in a normal way, as is provided in Rule 8(2) and, therefore, upheld the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) on similar facts and circumstances. Respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals) in giving relief to the assessee of an amount of Rs.5,94,333/- being expenditure on nursery and young tea maintenance, this year as well". Considering the above, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed". 17. Ground No. 3 of this appeal reads as under :- "Tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opening written down value by adding additional depreciation. 19. Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another -vs.- Azadi Bachao Andolan & Another [263 ITR 706]. He did not agree with the AO's contention that any amendment even though effected from a prospective date, should be deemed to be retrospectively effective from the date the section was inserted. 20. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions made before us and have perused the orders of authorities below. The assessee had advanced its claim on the ground that since assessee's income was to be computed as per Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules and 40% of the income was to be treated as income from business or profession, therefore, depreciation only to the extent of 40% was to be treated as actually allowed and to the extent the income was treated as agricultural income by virtue of the same being exempt, depreciation could not be deemed to have been actually allowed to the assessee for earning the agricultural income. As regards interpretation of the phrase 'actually allowed', the assessee had relied on the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... practice is written off in the books. However, in the course of time if any amount is realized, it will be reversed and credited to profit and loss account as per law". 23. From these submissions, the Assessing Officer concluded that on account of uncertainty only, the assessee had made a provision and, therefore, the same was not allowable under section 36(1)(vii)/ 36(2) of the Act. Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim, inter alia, observing in para 23 of his order that "after amendment of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2)(iii) w.e.f. 1.4.1989, any bad debt written off in accounts has to be allowed in the year in which it is written off. 24. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the records of the case. Admittedly, the assessee was in money lending business and in normal course of its business activities, money was lent to various parties on interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited -vs.- CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) held that once the bad debt has been written off in the books, the same is to be allowed. We may point out that after the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 198....