TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the following grounds of appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging the validity of revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act 1.1. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (hereinafter referred to as learned AO) under section 143(3) of the Act was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the order under section 263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad-in- law. 1.2. The learned PCIT erred in initiating the proceedings under section 263 of the Act without appreciating that the learned AO during the course of original assessment proceedings had made necessary enquiry and verification, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....later in subsequent years was more than? 34 crores, which substantiates that part of the standard assets were doubtful and hence, falls within the purview of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. 2.5. The learned PCIT failed to consider various favourable decisions relied upon by the Appellant including the decision of Amritsar Tribunal in case of Punjab Gramin Bank (ITA No. 134/ASR/2015) dated 22 June 2015 and Surat Tribunal in case of Surat Co-operative Bank Limited (ITA No. 16/AHD/2015) dated 17 May 2022, which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant clauses of this section and Chapter VIA shall be allowed as deduction. Further, Section 36(2)(v) provides that no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made there-under. However, the provisions of bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viia) does not include provision for standard assets. It was, thus, found that the AO, while computing the total income, had allowed excess deduction to the assessee, without making proper inquiries into the nature of the claim, making the assessment order passed by the AO, prima facie, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Vikramaditya NagrikSahkari Bank Maryadit Vs. ACIT in ITA No.36/IND/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 has held as under : "7...................... We, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are of the opinion that in the instant appeal the contingency provision for standard assets is basically in the nature of bad and doubtful debts only and the assessee has rightly claimed the expenditure u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. We, therefore, allow the sole ground raised by the assessee. 3.1 ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.3267 to 3269/MUM/2019 has held as under : "9............. Therefore, following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DR: 5. The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of ld.Pr.CIT. The ld.DR submitted that as per section 263 even if AO has carried out inadequate enquiries, the ld.Pr.CIT has power to invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. In this case, AO had not carried out proper enquiries on the impugned issue. Findings &Analysis : 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The issue involved is whether ld.Pr.CIT had rightly invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 6.1 It is observed that different benches of ITAT have taken different views on the issue of allowability under section 36(1)(viia) deduction for provision for standard assets. The ITAT Indore Bench in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ible in law, the CIT is not justified in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. " Unquote. 6.5 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Future Corporate Resources Ltd in IT Appeal No.1275 of 2017 vide order dated September 29, 2021 held as under : Quote ," 7. In the order of PCIT it is stated "in paragraph 4.3 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded that from the details submitted by the assessee and the explanation given by him, it was observed that assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment had been made and also there was business income to the assessee from the same. Therefore, interest expense debited by the assessee has not been considered ....