TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessment was completed, inter-alia, making following additions/disallowances as under: - Software expenses Rs.1,23,114/- Disallowance on a/c of NPA Rs.45,78,232/- Disallowance on a/c of delayed Payment of P.F. Rs.2,14,127/- Expenditure relating to dividend income Rs.45,40,697/- Interest/discount on Govt. Securities Rs.83,03,169/- Depreciation on Software expenditure Considered as capital Rs.3,06,908/- 3. Being aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the assessee's appeal. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A) both assessee and department are in appeal before us. 5. First we take up the assessee's appeal vide ITA No. 3198/D/04: - First ground is general and, therefore, does not require any adjudication. 6. Second ground raised by the assessee reads as under: - 2. "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 45,78,232/- on account of the interest income booked in earlier years but reversed in the current year as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines in respect of nonperforming assets." 7. Brief fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed related to non-performing assets, which were in the nature of bad and doubtful debts, therefore both the conditions, as envisaged by section 36(1)(vii), were satisfied. The assessee had relied on various case laws in support of its submission that after the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. April 1, 1981, if debt had been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year, it will suffice for claiming it as a bad debt and the assessee can never be called upon to prove that the said debt had become bad. 8.1 Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the first plea of the assessee, inter-alia, accepting the AO's contention that revision of income in respect of NPA's tantamount to following cash system of accounting. He also observed that in view of the discussion of AO on this issue and the specific provisions of sec. 43D, the assessee's claim was not acceptable. However, he accepted the alternate plea of the assessee and restored the matter back to the file of AO observing that assessee had not clarified whether the interest income had actually been received and the same was reversed or it was just a book entry reversed subsequently. He directed the AO to ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I Act. The RBI has issued a notification, in exercise of its powers u/s 45JA, on NBFCs Prudential Norms (RBI), 1998. The revenue's contention is that on account of reversal of interest income, the assessee has in effect resorted to cash system of accounting, which is in contravention to the provisions of section 145, as assessee was following mercantile system of accounting. This plea cannot be accepted because of the specific provisions contained in the Reserve Bank of India Act which primarily administer the functioning of assessee. There is no dispute that assessee had reversed the income in respect of NPA as per the "Prudential Norms". The assessee had to comply with the requirements of RBI norms and, therefore, could not account for the income in respect of assets which had become NPA. Therefore, section 145 could not be resorted to for accounting income purely on accrual basis. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., 330 ITR 440 (supra), wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under: - "We have considered the respective submissions in their proper perspective. Before we embark on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of enterprise resources is reasonably determinable. When such consideration is not determinable within reasonable limits, the recognition of revenue is postponed. 9.5 When recognition of revenue is postponed due to the effect of uncertainties, it is considered as revenue of the period in which it is properly recognized." In this scenario, we have to examine the strength in the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue that whether it can still be held that income in the form of interest though not received had still accrued to the assessee under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and was, therefore, exigible to tax. Our answer is in the negative and we give then following reasons in support: (1) First of all we would discuss the matter in the light of the provisions of the I.T. Act and to examine as to whether in the given circumstances, interest income has accrued to the assessee. It is stated at the cost of repetition that the admitted position is that the assessee had not received any interest on the said ICD placed with Shaw Wallace since the AY 1996-97 as it had become NPAs in accordance with the Prudential Norms which was entered in the books of account as well....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the assessee a NBFC debited ₹ 81,68,516/- as provision against NPA in the profit and loss account, which was claimed as deduction in terms of sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction claimed as aforesaid on the ground that the provision of NPA was not in the nature of expenditure or loss but more in the nature of a reserve, and thus not deductible u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The AO, however, did not bring to tax ₹ 20,34,605 as income (being income accrued under the mercantile system of accounting). The dispute before the apex court centered around deductibility of provision for NPA. After analyzing the provisions of the RBI Act, their Lordships of the apex court observed that in so far as the permissible deductions or exclusions under the Act are concerned, the same are admissible only if such deductions/exclusions satisfy the relevant conditions stipulated therefore under the Act. To that extent, it was observed that the Prudential Norms do not override the provisions of the Act. However, the apex court made a distinction with regard to "income recognition" and held that income had to be recognized in terms of the Prudential Norms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he referred to page 7 of ld. CIT(A)'s order, wherein the details of investments are contained which are as under: - Dividend received from Amount (Rs.) GE Countrywide Consumer financial Services 1,28,33,336 Maruti Countrywide 44,40,000 IGE 6,00,000 Mahindra Sona 2,89,450 Total 1,81,62,786 24. Ld. Counsel submitted that ld. CIT(A) has followed the order for AY 1996-97 which is contained at page 15 to 34 of paper book and referred to page 18 of the said order. He pointed out that the issue related to the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80M of the Act on gross basis. In that context the AO had observed that the investments were made out of borrowings and, therefore, relying on the earlier years order he estimated notional income and expenses relating to such investments amounting to ₹ 34,51,733/-. However, in the present assessment year, the AO has allocated expenses under management and administrative heads. Therefore, the decision for AY 1996-97 is not relevant. Ld. Counsel submitted that no part of expenditure can be said to be attributable or incidental to the earning of exempt income. 25. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluded from income of the assessee. The AO rejected the assessee's claim of accounting for interest on Government Securities on cash basis. The AO distinguished the decision in the case of Dalmia Dadri Cement vs. CIT, 126 ITR 851 on the ground that in the said decision issue involved was debenture redemption and whether debenture redeemed by paying lump sum excess paid over face value was to be allowed as business outgoing. He pointed out that in the present case Government Securities are in the books of the assessee as investments as on 31/03/1999. There was no trading or redemption which was involved. He, therefore, made an adjustment of ₹ 83,03,169/- observing as under: - "For this reason, amount of ₹ 81,99,745/- is to be added to the income of the assessee as also done in order for assessment year 1998-99 where an amount of ₹ 1,65,02,914/- was added back. Consequently, this corresponding amount of ₹ 1,65,02,914/-, added in last year, is allowed as deduction, and the difference of ₹ 83,03,169/- is, therefore, allowed." 30. Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal following the decision for AY 1996-97 and 1997-98 and also relying on the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or AY 1996-97. 25. During the course of hearing before us the ld. Departmental Representative argued that the decision of the Tribunal reported in [1999] 65 TTJ (Jp) 480 : [2000] 74 ITD 203 (Jp) (supra) had been given in relation to a bank whereas the assessee before us was not a bank. The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case of the assessee was not properly distinguished. The assessee was controlled by RBI guidelines applicable to nonbanking financial corporations. The assessee submitted that the securities in question had been acquired in view of the said RBI guidelines only. The same did not constitute the assessee's stock-in ITA trade. The ld. Counsel argued that in addition to Tribunal decision reported in [1999] 65 TTJ (Jp) 49=80 : [2000] 74 ITD 203 (Jp) (supra) the case of the assessee was also governed by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Ltd. [1999] 157 CTR (Del) 116; [1999] 239 ITR 343 (Del). Respectfully Mowing the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court we reject Revenue's grounds of appeal for both the assessment years provided the assessee has offered the amount of interest on due date basis in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are informed that the software for which the expenditure was incurred was MS Office, which is not a custom built software for the assessee and it is common knowledge that this software requires regular upgradation. We can understand that where customized software is prepared, then it could be of an enduring nature, but in this case MS Office is not customized software and it cannot be said that the software does not require frequent upgradation. We are of the view that there is no error committed by the Tribunal in taking the view that it did." 39. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court(supra) this ground is dismissed. 40. Ground no. 3 reads as under: - "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow the sum of ₹ 4578232/- being the income of earlier years reversed, as bad debt merely by verifying whether it was received earlier or not, without examining whether all the conditions to allow the deduction were satisfied or not, including verification to determine whether the debt was "bad"." 41. This ground is identical to ground no. 2 of assessee's appeal. 42. We have already accep....