2023 (9) TMI 586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The grievance of the revenue read as under :- "ia) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case; the Ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO at Rs. 1,65,72,820/- on account of fresh provision for NPA out of realization of the preceding years' NPA amounting to Rs. 2,21,15,886/-; without appreciating the fact that deduction in in respect of such provisions has already been claimed & allowed in the relevant years and, therefore, such realization forms part of the current year's income as such; as against partly credited to the P&L account at Rs. 55,43,066/-. ib) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case; the Ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deration was electronically filed on 05.11.2013 declaring loss of Rs. 5,27,16,858/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 5. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has made provision for NPA of Rs. 1,65,72,820/-. The assessee was asked to justify the claim and also show cause why the aforesaid provision should not be disallowed. 6. In its reply the assessee submitted that though the provision of Rs. 1,65,72,820/- was made but has reversed Rs. 2,21,15,886/-. However, it was admitted Rs. 2,21,15,886/- pertain to earlier years. The assessee was asked to give year wise bifurcation of the same....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....Dos.LDB/1/97-98 dated 19/06/1997 (Circular enclosed Pg 2-7). This contention of the assessee has been upheld by CIT (Appeals) Rohtak vide its order dated 29/11/2016 for the A.Y. 2012-13. (Copy of order is enclosed herewith) (Pg 18-23). But the point worth noting here, in the A.Y. 2013-14, is that the assessee did not make any provision in this year because there was no doubtful asset as per the criteria given the circular issued by the NABARD. In fact the provision made in the earlier years was more than what was required so the assessee reversed the provision and credited the P/L A/c by Rs. 55,43,066/-. The copy of NPA A/c is enclosed herewith for your kind consideration which is self explanatory. (Pg No 1) The ledger su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the orders of the authorities below. The coordinate Bench in ITA No.4312/Del/2012 for A.Y. 2006-07 was seized with the following grounds of appeal :- 1. "On the facts of and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing interest on sticky loans (NPA) transferred to suspense account and not accounted for in P&L account or in its total income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (Supreme Court) is applicable to the case of the assessee and facts of the case of Keshav Ji Ravji & Co. Vs. CIT (1990) 183 IT....