Ita/260/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Syndicate Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANL 1T.A. NO.260 OF 2011 BEI|WEEN 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III. C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2).ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE-1, CANARA TOWERS MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD UDUPI-576 101, MANGALORE. 3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE (1), UDUPI-576101. _.. APPELLANTS (By Sri. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND M/S. SYNDICATE BANKH.O. ACCOUNTS DEPT.|MANIPAL ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16/3/2011|PASSED IN ITA NO.116/BANG/2008 AND 225/BANG/2008,FOR|THEASSESSMENT|YEAR2002-05, PRAYING|TOFORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED.THEREIN. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED)16/3/2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT, A’ BENCH, BANGALORE IN)ITA NO.116/BANG/2008 AND 225/BANG/2008, AS SOUGHT|FOR IN THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND.EQUITY. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I1.Sanmatni, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.1.Sooryanarayan,learned.counselfor.the|aSSeSSAE., This appeal has been filed by the revenue under|Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafterreferred to as the Act, for short), which was admittedby a Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.06.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: (1)“Whether on the facts and in the|circumstances of the case the Tribunal wes|right in law in holding that the reversal of interest on Non Performing Assets (NPA)|amountsto.baddebtsunderSection36(1)(vil) read with Section 36(2) when the|RBI circular dated 4.7.7007 does not term|the same as bad debts and Is silent on the|mode of claiming deduction under _ thprovisions of I.T.Act and more over there Is no such provision under the I.7T. Act forreversal of interest? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the.circumstances of the case, the tribunal was.right in law in allowing deduction claimed|towards bad and doubtful debts without|making provision and without considering|that section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are|separate and independent, apart from that|assessee’s claim under Section 36(1)(viia) ofthe [.T.Act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the.circumstances of the case the tribunel’s|order can be considered as perverse in|naturesince tribunal hasallowed|theassessee’sappealby over-lookingtheprovisions of the I. T.Act? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the.circumstances of the case the tripunal wes|right in law in allowing the interest on zero|coupon bonds even when interest on zero|coupon bonds is not an exempt income|under tne provisions of I.T.Act and assesseehad shown the interest Income in the books|of account? 2.|When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the parties jointly submitted that thesubstantial question of law Nos.1 and 4 are covered bythe judgment rendered by this Court in ITA No.98/2010and ITA No.18/2014 decided on 23.01.2020 and16.01.2020 respectively. It is further submitted that thesubstantial question of law Nos.2 and 3 do not arise forconsideration as the same nave not been decided by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal on account of want ofCOD clearance. 3.In view of the aforesaid submissions, thesubstantial question of law Nos.1 and 4 are answered in. 36*2;�9<�346�F:7C2613�>0;;67�+1�346�9*76*�70367������������+1������9�-.,�����017������9��.,���B�70367��&���������� �889*7+1C5)"�346�0>>605�+;�7+;>9;67�9<��� ;;� ������ ������ ������� ������