Itta/61/2014 Of State Bank Of Hyderabad v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.61 OF 2014 DATED:19.2.2014 Between: State Bank of HyderabadHyderabad … Appellant And Additional Commissioner of Income TaxRange-3Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.61 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal, dated 28.3.2013, in relation to the assessment year2008-09 and sought to be admitted on the following suggestedquestions of law. A.“Whether the claim under Section 36(1)(viia) isto be made by the bank to the extent of provisionmade in the books or irrespective of provisionmade in the books? B.Whether the Tribunal is correct in restricting theclaim for provision for bad and doubtful debts inrespect of rural branch advances to be actualprovision made in the books based on judgmentof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Catholic SyrianBank case (343 ITR 270), Vijay Bank case (323ITR 166) and TRF Limited case (323 ITR 397)when the said issue never arose for considerationin any of these cases? C.Whether the Tribunal erred in not following orreferring to the decision of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in SyndicateBank case (78 ITD 103)?” We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gonethrough the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The grievance of the appellant relates to doubtful and bad debts. The learned Tribunal has not decided the issue in the light of theSupreme Court judgments. It set aside the impugned judgment andorder of the authorities below and remanded the matter to the file of theAssessing Officer to decide the same in the light of the judgments ofthe 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 that the Tribunal has nopower to remand the matter, but we are of the view that the matter isremanded rightly to decide afresh in the light of the Supreme Courtjudgments. 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 learnedTribunal will not be influencing and binding factor for rendering thedecision by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we do not admit the appeal and direct theAssessing Officer to decide the matter in terms of the judgment of thelearned Tribunal and as clarified by our judgment and order within aperiod of three months from the date of communication of this order. With the above direction, the appeal is dismissed. There will beno order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 19.2.2014 bnr