TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owance in the sum of Rs.59,22,784/-by applying s. 14A of the Act, with the impugned expenses including the purchase cost of interest-free securities, as also the proportionate share of administrative expenses, i.e., Rs.58,641/-. It was the common contention of the parties during hearing before us that though the matter stands decided in the assessee's favour by the tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier year, the matter has since attained finality by the decision by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of the assessee-bank, along with, others for several years (in I.T.A. No. 1324 of 2009 dated.21-10-2010 (Exhibit P- 1), it may be restored back to he file of the assessing authority to carry out the directions by the hon'ble high court, after hearing the assessee. We find the said contention to be in accord with the procedure that would enable the application of the decision by the hon'ble high court in a fair and transparent manner. We, accordingly, direct so. 3. The second issue raised by the assessee relates to the disallowance in the sum of Rs.16,67,332/- in respect of its claim under section 35D of the Act, i.e., at the entire amount fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd restored back to the file of the AO, with directions, we only consider it fit and proper that the matter be likewise restored back to the file of the AO, who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law, relying on the decisions by the higher courts as well as by the tribunal that may come to, or are brought, to his notice, of course, after affording due opportunity of representation to the assessee in this regard. We may clarify that the same issue has also been considered by this tribunal in the case of other banks as well, as in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (in ITA No. 935/Coch/2008 dated 31/5/2011 for AY 2005-06/copy on record), and reference to which would be relevant in the matter. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Asstt.Year 2005-06 (Revenue's appeal in I.T.A No. 132/Coch/2009) 6. The first issue in the Revenue's appeal relates to the addition on account of valuation of investments made in the sum of Rs.1,86,23,010/-. It was informed by the assessee, by relying on the decisions both by the hon'ble high court and the tribunal (placed at Annexure A & C respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of the same assessee [in CIT vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 124 (Ker.) (FB)], so that the issue stands decided in favour of the Revenue, and apparently covered against the assessee, we shall in view of the assessee's specific case as raised before us, are obliged to advert to the facts of the case. 9. The basis of the AO's denial of deduction to the assessee was that in his view allowing the same would amount to a double deduction. The assessee had an opening credit of Rs.2021.45 lakhs, i.e., in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account, which was further increased by Rs.688.38 lakhs for the relevant year (for which the deduction was claimed and allowed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act), so that there was a total provision of Rs.2709.83 lakhs as at the year-end (refer para 13, pg. 14 of the assessment order). That being the case, there was an excess credit outstanding in the provisiona ccount, which stood reduced to Rs.2552.28 lakhs at the year-end (31-03-2005) by the debit of the amount written off in accounts to the said account. As such, the assessee would not be entitled to any claim in respect of its said write off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties, disallowed in the sum of Rs.403.29 lakhs. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the same on the basis of the decision by the tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2003-04 (in I.T.A. No. 394/Coch/2006 dated 27-09-2007). The ld. CIT(A) has also given a clear finding that no depreciation in respect of these securities is being claimed by the assessee. 11. The assessee before us has placed on record the decision relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) in case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (Annexure B) (in I.T.A. No. 394/Coch/2006 dated 27-09-2007). We have perused the same and find the tribunal to have followed the earlier decision by it in the case of the same assessee (in I.T.A. No. 1215/Coch/2004 dated 13-02-2007), deleting the said disallowance. In view of the consistent view by the tribunal, we confirm the said deletion by the ld. CIT(A). We may also state that in this view of the matter, we find no merit in the argument advanced by the ld. DR during hearing that the matter be restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision, which is, in effect, what we have essentially done. We decide accordingly. 12. The fourth and final issue agitated by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty to interest arose only consequent to the regular assessment, and which it is claimed could not be anticipated earlier; it filing a return of income for the year. 17. We are unable to find any merit in the assessee's case, particularly in view of the settled position that interest u/s. 234B is compensatory and, thus, mandatory, even as clarified by the apex court time and again (refer CIT vs. Anjum S. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC). Before us, the assessee has referred to the decision by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in its case for A.Y. 1999-2000 [reported at (2010) 325 ITR 517 (Ker.)], stating that the matter be restored to the file of the AO to modify the levy, if found necessary, on the basis of the dictum laid down in the said decision. In fact, vide the said decision, the hon'ble jurisdictional high court, referring to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Anjum S. Ghaswala (supra), has further clarified that the levy of interest u/s. 234B(3) would survive independent of a levy u/s. 234B(1), i.e., it is not necessary or a pre-condition for the levy of interest u/s. 234B(3), i.e., upon re-assessment or recomputation u/s. 147 or s. 153A, that it could follow ....