TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision of the Tribunal on ground no.10, 11, 12 and 13, which was on account of withdrawal of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of Rs. 405,17,20,944 , in relation to the provisions of standard assets. The assessee has contended that in Para-3 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed that the facts and circumstances of this issue are mutatis mutandis similar to those for the preceding year i.e., assessment year 2005-06, wherein the Tribunal has upheld the order of the learned Commissioner under section 263. Such finding of the Tribunal is not correct as in the earlier assessment year 2005-06, the learned Commissioner has not decided this issue on merits and has only directed the Assessing Officer to pass the fresh assessment af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the earlier year order for dismissing this issue is not correct and it is a mistake apparent from record which needs to be rectified. He submitted that the effect of the said order of the Tribunal will result in straight away deduction of sum of Rs. 405,17,20,944, which is otherwise admissible to the assessee under section 36(1)(viia). Thus, he submitted that on this score, the order of the Tribunal should be recalled and should be decided on merits. 4. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that once the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that this issue is similar to the issue involved in the assessment year 2005-06 and not only this, it has also been recorded that it has been conceded by the learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 36(1)(viia) of the Act." 6. The learned Counsel, at the time of hearing, brought to the notice of the Bench that similar issue as raised in point no.(iii), was also involved in the assessment year 2005-06, wherein the learned Commissioner has exercised his revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 on the following issues:- "1) While computing the total income the Assessing Officer rejected claim of bank to reduce an amount of Rs. 2,985.34 crores which was credited in Profit & Loss account on account of appreciation of securities held as AFS (available for sale) and HFT (Held for Trading) categories from total income. However, while arriving at the total income the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction of Rs. 1,244.90 crores whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicable for the reason that in this year, the learned Commissioner has passed the order after discussing on merits and, therefore, the earlier Tribunal order will not apply in this year. Such contention of the learned Counsel, first of all, is not well founded from our records, as there is a specific noting in both the files, wherein it has been clearly noted that the learned Counsel has accepted that the third issue relating to the provisions of doubtful debts for the purpose of allowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viia), is squarely covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal which is against the assessee. This fact has also been noted in our log book wherein, we have noted that this issue is covered by the order of the Tribuna....