TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the end of the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer supplied to the assessee, the reasons recorded by him for issuing the notice. The reasons read as under: "1. In this case, the assessee has filed Income Tax return for AY 2008-09 on 30/09/2008 which was revised on 01.02.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 34,57,36040/-. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act finalized on 28.12.2010 determining of total income at Rs. 35,74,71,810/-. 2. From the verification of records, it appears that the assessee has claimed provision of bad debts of Rs. 2,80,93,909/- @ 7.5% of gross income of Rs. 37,45,85,447/-. However, in the profit and loss account the assessee has not made any provision for bad debts and hence the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is not allowable in view of the CBDT letter No. 17 of 2008 dtd. 26.11.2008 wherein it is mentioned that the deduction for provision of bad and doubtful debt should be restricted to amount to actual provision created in the books of accounts. 3. Further it appears that the assessee has deducted brought forward unabsorbed loss of Rs. 28,56,816/- and unabsorbed brought forward depreciation of Rs. 8,28,666/- in respect of Tap. Co.Op Bank w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer during regular assessment. In a letter dated 30.08.2010 written by the petitioner to the Assessing Officer, in response to the clarification sought by the Assessing Officer regarding eligibility of claim of provisions for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the petitioner had stated that: "During the previous year under reference your assessee bank had debited Rs. 6,21,75,117/- to NPA Prudential written off a/c and also debited Rs. 12,60,414/- to bad debts Provision A/c. Thus as per the Provisions of Section 36(1) (vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(v), your assessee is eligible for claim of deduction of Rs. 6,34,35,531/- (Rs. 6,21,75,114/- +Rs. 12,60,414/-) whereas, while computing total income, claim of Rs. 2,80,93,909/- which is @ 7.5% of gross total income is made U/s. 36(1)(viaa) which is lower than the eligible and allowable claim of deduction U/s. 36(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act. In view of the above facts, it is humbly requested to kindly allow the deduction of Rs. 2,80,93,909/- made Y/s. 36(viia) In alternate, as clarified hereinabove, deduction of Rs. 6,34,35,531/- u/s. 36(vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) be allowed which your assessee bank is in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in the final order of assessment, is an issue on which the assessee would have no control whatsoever. Whether the Assessing Officer allows such a claim, rejects such a claim or partially allows and partially rejects the claim, are all options available with the Assessing Officer, over which the assessee beyond trying to persuade the Assessing Officer, would have no control whatsoever. Therefore, while framing the assessment, allowing the claim fully or partially, in what manner the assessment order should be framed, is totally beyond the control of the assessee. If the Assessing Officer, therefore, after scrutinizing the claim minutely during the assessment proceedings, does not reject such a claim, but chooses not to give any reasons for such a course of action that he adopts, it can hardly be stated that he did not form an opinion on such a claim. It is not unknown that assessments of larger corporations in the modern day, involve large number of complex claims, voluminous material, numerous exemptions and deductions. If the Assessing Officer is burdened with the responsibility of giving reasons for several claims so made and accepted by him, it would even otherwise cast an u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period up to 10.05.2007 of Rs. 7,98,519/- is made separately whereas the figure of Rs. 28,56,816/- being brought forward business loss is also inclusive of loss for the period up to 10.05.2007 of Rs. 7,98,519/- For this unintentional error your assessee request your Honour to kindly condone and as pointed out by assessee it be added to returned total income for the purpose of framing assessment of total income." 8. Yet again, the Assessing Officer made no disallowance on the said claim of unabsorbed depreciation of Tapi Bank of Rs. 8.28 lacs in the original assessment. Quite apart from this, we do not see any material, on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer asserts that the brought forward loss of Rs. 28.58 lacs includes the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 8.28 lacs. The two are independent separate figures. In fact, it was pointed out by the assessee in the communication dated 30.04.2010 it was a sum of Rs. 7.98 lacs of loss of Tapi Bank which was included in the brought forward loss of Rs. 28.58 lacs and which the assessee upon noticing error surrendered. This issue, the assessee had raised substantially in the objection to the process of reopening as under: "(II)....