TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the disallowance holding that section 36(1)(viia) contains provisions for Schedule Bank, whereas there is no such provision for NBFC. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the disallowance holding that if a particular method of accounting is being followed by the assessee regularly it should not be disturbed in just one particular year, without appreciating the fact that the assessee is getting double deduction. In way of capital recovery and full depreciation on the assets without adjustment of written down value. 3. That the appellant craves for leave to add, deleted and modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee claimed that during the relevant assessment year, it was a registered NBFC and had to follow the stringent guidelines on provisioning over non-performing assets, as prescribed by RBI. It also claimed that in assessee's own case in A.Y. 1998-99, the jurisdictional Tribunal has directe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he various decisions rendered by the co-ordinate Benches as well as the decision of the Special Bench in the case of New India Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT dated 26.10.2007. The Tribunal also considered the various orders of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue u/s 260A. The Tribunal also considered the issue of binding precedent of the decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in light of the decision rendered by the Gujrat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 283 ITR 402. After considering the issue from all angles, the Tribunal finally upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance on account of provision for NPA and dismissed the ground of the revenue. A copy of the said order of the Tribunal is also enclosed for your kind perusal and ready reference. 5.3.3 The ACIT A.O has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala (219 ITR 706). In my view, that decision is on different footing and context - as it is the case of a scheduled bank; whereas the instant case of the appellant is of a NBFC. In the Act - there are specific provisions on the issue of Provisions for Scheduled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. CIT(A) in respect of provision for NPA and dismissed the ground taken by the Department. Further, the Tribunal in an appeal by the assessee in A.Y. 1999-2000 in its order dated 31.05.2007 in ITA No. 2529/Kol/2004 followed the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 1998-99 and directed the A.O. to allow the deduction for Provision for Non-performing asset debited to Profit & Loss Account pursuant to the prudential norms of RBI applicable to NBFCs. In a very recent decision 29.05.2009 also, the Jurisdictional Kolkata Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Spot Light Vanijya Ltd. in ITA No. 442/Kol/2008 held that provision for NPA is allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal in this case considered the various decisions rendered by the co-ordinate Benches as well as the decision of the Special Bench in the case of New India Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT dated 26.10.2007. The Tribunal also considered the various orders of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue u/s 260A. The Tribunal also considered the issue of binding precedent of the decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in light of the decision rendered by the Gujrat High Court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d u/s 37(1) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, provision for NPA of Rs. 1,371 lakhs was added back by AO in the computation of total income. We note that Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal and question no. (iii) of High Court's order is in relation to disallowance of Provision for Non-performing assets (NPA) of Rs. 13,71,00,000/- made in accordance with the prudential norms of the RBI in computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act. In the return of income, the assessee had not added back Provision for NPA while computing its total income under normal provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer, relying on the decision of Apex Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. -vs.- JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC) disallowed the same. On appeal, the CIT(A) affirmed the decision of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the ITAT in its earlier order dated 27-02-2019 relying on the decision of Southern Technologies Ltd. (Supra) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On appeal, before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, Question No. (iii) which deals with the issue under consideration was remanded back to this Tribunal for fresh consideration. Acco....