2018 (3) TMI 1034

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Appeals), Kottayam in so far as the points stated below are concerned, is opposed to law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of NPA Provisions and Other Reserves of Rs. 2,60,85,652/-. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in holding that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is beyond the purview of section 154 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the only provisions and reserves admissible to banks including co-operative banks are "Provision for bad and doubtful debts" u/s 36(1 )(viia) and Special Reserve provided u/s 36(1 )(viii) of the I.T Act. 5. The Ld. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reads as follow:- "ORDER U/S 154 Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 16-12- 2009 determining a assessed loss of Rs. 3,39,64,430/-. The profit and loss account was debited with the following provisions and reserves which are inadmissible as per the provisions in Income-tax Act, 1961. NAA Provisions 2,13,02,000 Other reserves and provisions 47,83,652 The only provisions and Reserves admissible to banks including co-op banks are 'Provisions for bad and doubtful debts' u/s 36(1)(viia) and special reserve provided u/s 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act. As per the balance sheet as on 31-03-2006 & 31-03-2007, the assessee has not created any provisions for bad and doubtful debts during the previous year relevant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers 832 ITR 50 (SC) has clearly laid down that mistake apparent on the face of the record must be an obvious and a patent mistake. It is held that "mistake apparent from the record" cannot be something which would have to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may be conceivably two opinions. 6. From the discussions above, it is clear that the appellant's case does not fall under the category of a 'mistake apparent from the records'. Moreover, the AO has hardly mentioned what is the exact mistake in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act. I am unable to sustain the order u/s 154 and it is hereby cancelled. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed." 5. A....