Itta/323/2013 Of State Bank Of Hyderabad v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A. No. 323 of 2013 DATE: 07.08.2013 Between: State Bank of Hyderabad,Hyderabad. … Appellant And Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCircle 3(2), Range-3, Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A. No. 323 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, dated 07.09.2012, in relation to the assessment year 2007-08 and sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law. A.Whether the claim under Section 36(1)(viia) is to be madeby the bank to the extent of provision made in the books orirrespective of provision made in the books? B.Whether the Tribunal is correct in restricting the claim forprovision for bad and doubtful debts in respect of ruraladvances to be actual provision made in the books based onjudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Catholic SyrianBank case (343 ITR 270), Vijay Bank case (323 ITR 166) andTRF Limited case (323 ITR 397) when the said issue neverarose for consideration in any of these cases. C.Whether the Tribunal erred in not following or referring tothe decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BangaloreBench in Syndicate Bank case (78 ITD 103) where it washeld that provision u/s. 36(1)(viia) can be allowed irrespectiveof provision made in the books. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The grievance of the appellant relates to doubtful and bad debts. Thelearned Tribunal has not decided the issue in the light of the Supreme Courtjudgments. It set aside the impugned judgment and order of the authoritiesbelow and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decidethe same in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of (a) TRF Limited (323 ITR 397), (b) Vijaya Bank Limited (323 ITR 166 and (c)Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd (343 ITR 270). No argument can be accepted thatthe Tribunal has no power to remand the matter, but we are of the view thatthe matter is remanded rightly to decide afresh in the light of the SupremeCourt judgments. The legal observation recorded in the impugned judgmentand order by the learned Tribunal cannot be a binding factor for takingdecision. As such, we clarify that the observation of the learned Tribunal willnot be influencing and binding factor for rendering the decision by theAssessing Officer. Accordingly, we do not admit the appeal and direct the AssessingOfficer to decide the matter in terms of the judgment of the learned Tribunaland as clarified by our judgment and order within a period of three monthsfrom the date of communication of this order. With the above direction, the appeal is dismissed. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ________________ K. C. BHANU, J