TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss declared in the return. 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred both in law and On facts in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 36(l)(viia) of the I.T. Act equal to the amount of 10% of average rural advances as prescribed specifically in the section itself. 3. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on facts in not applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court reported in (2010) 228 ITR 440 (SC) in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT simply stating that the said order deals with NBFCs. when the Apex Court has specifically analyzed the provisions of section 36(l)(viia) in the cases of banks. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts in applying the ratio l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f State Bank of Patiala vs CIT because in that case the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the appeal observing only that "no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration by this court." 9. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in not allowing opportunity to the assessee as requested in second last para of the reply dated 10/02/2014 quoted by the Ld AO in the assessment order itself on page 10 of the order. 10. That the ld Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in initiating proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) when all the facts relevant for assessment have been disclosed and nothing has been concealed. 11. That the disallowance made by the ld Assessing Officer may kindly be delet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by the rural branches of the bank. He therefore held that it is a specific deduction given by the statute irrespective of the car quantum provided in the books of accounts by the assessee towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. With respect to the judicial conflict between the decision of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court, Carroll High Court he applied the ratio laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in 188 ITR 192 wherein it has held that if 2 reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the assessee should be adopted. Accordingly he held that the appellant is entitled to claim deduction u/s 36 (1) (viia) of the income tax act at the rate of 10% on the aggregate aver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010 - 11 in ITA number 4090/del/2013 dated 14//7/2017 and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. The coordinate bench held as under:- "5. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO. On the other hand Ld. AR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and he submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is right and he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has done good reasoned order therefore it should not be disturbed. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Coordinate bench of the Delhi Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 4090/Del/13 for the asstt. Year 2010-11 vide order dated 14.7.2017 on the same issue and therefore deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) has been 6 correctly al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing year on an identical issue the ld. CIT invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and this Bench of the Tribunal having same combination, set aside the said order in assessee's own case as reported in (2016) 52 ITR (Trib.) 454 (supra) and observed in para 18 of the order dated 25.04.2016 as under: "18. In the present case, the assessee had given the break-up of each branch (copies of which are placed at pages 15 to 28). In the instant case, the assessee in its computation of revised total income/loss (copy of which is placed at page 1 7 of the assessee's paper book) clearly mentioned that deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act was claimed at 10 per cent of average agricultural advances of Rs.801.56 crores. Thereaf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(l)(vii) relating to allowance of deduction of the bad debts. In other words, scheduled commercial banks would continue to get the benefit of the write off of the irrecoverable debts under section 36(1)(vii) in addition to the benefit of deduction of the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)." 23. In the present case, the AO himself admitted in the assessment order at page no. 3 that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act at Rs.105,69,80,000/- which is 10% of the aggregate rural advances of the bank. The aforesaid claim was allowable to the assessee 8 as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the aforesaid refe....