Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Near Law College, G.e. Road,Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1)

(Tax Case No.204/2024) 2025:CGHC:34751-DB NAFR TAXC No. 204 of 2024 {Arising out of order dated 29-5-2024 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur, in ITA No.60/RPR/2018} Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Near Law College, G.E. Road,Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), 32/32 Bungalows, Bhilai,District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent :For Appellant Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate. :For Respondent Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. AmitChaudhari, Standing Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment. Chaudhari, Standing Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment. -Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ. Judgment On Board(22/07/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this tax appeal preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the IT Act’). (Tax Case No.204/2024) 2. The assessee/appellant herein filed its return of income on 6-1-2011by declaring total income as Nil for the assessment year 2010-11(financial year 2009-10) and claiming refund of ₹ 1,35,25,200/-against which notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued on29-8-2011 fixing hearing for 6-9-2011 and accordingly, on 28-2-2013,assessment order was passed adding 24,94,52,582/- to the income₹of the assessee on the count of provision for bad bebts written backas the same did not find place in the computation of income ofprevious assessment year 2009-10 (financial year 2008-09) andoffered to taxation as per the assessment order and also added ₹5,20,347/- to the income of the assessee disallowing the employeescontribution under Section 36(va) of the IT Act to ContributoryPension Fund as it was beyond the due date, and thus, the totaladdition was erroneously calculated as 29,99,72,930/- instead of ₹₹24,99,72,929/- and accordingly, demand of ₹ 12,58,71,660/- wasraised, which was sought to be rectified by the rectification applicationfiled by the assessee under Section 154 of the IT Act on 4-7-2013,however, by order dated 12-9-2013, the addition of 8,10,72,135/-₹was disallowed for bad and doubtful debts reflected in the books ofaccount of the assessee feeling aggrieved against which the assesseepreferred appeal before the CIT (Appeals) under Section 246A of theIT Act in Form-35 which was allowed by the CIT (Appeals) by orderdated 19-2-2018 against which the Revenue preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur. The ITAT byits impugned order allowing the appeal preferred by the Revenue,remanded back the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officerto allow the deduction to the extent of actual provision for bad debtsmade by the assessee in its books of accounts for the relevantassessment year after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing tothe assessee. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passedby the ITAT, the assessee has preferred the instant appeal. 3. Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant herein/assessee, would submit that the ITAT while allowingthe appeal in part could not have remanded the matter to theAssessing Officer for afresh determination. appellant herein/assessee, would submit that the ITAT while allowingthe appeal in part could not have remanded the matter to theAssessing Officer for afresh determination. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theRevenue/respondent herein, would support the impugned order andoppose the present tax appeal. Revenue/respondent herein, would support the impugned order andoppose the present tax appeal. 3. Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant herein/assessee, would submit that the ITAT while allowingthe appeal in part could not have remanded the matter to theAssessing Officer for afresh determination. appellant herein/assessee, would submit that the ITAT while allowingthe appeal in part could not have remanded the matter to theAssessing Officer for afresh determination. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theRevenue/respondent herein, would support the impugned order andoppose the present tax appeal. Revenue/respondent herein, would support the impugned order andoppose the present tax appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered theirrival submissions made herein-above and also went through therecord with utmost circumspection.rival submissions made herein-above and also went through therecord with utmost circumspection. 6. In fact, the learned ITAT after hearing the counsel for the parties andafter going through the record held in paragraphs 12 and 15 as under: -after going through the record held in paragraphs 12 and 15 as under: - “12.Adverting to the first contention of the assessee thatsince the assessee has not pointed out and the mistakeregarding claim of assessee for provision of bad debts whichwas not recorded in the books of assessee is not apparent from the assessment order, therefore, the addition of Rs.8,10,72,135/- cannot be made under the provisions of section154. Ld. CIT(A) had also made the observations on this issuethat the rectification u/s 154 can only be made when glaringmistake of law has been committed in the order which isapparent from the record. On a thoughtful consideration of thefacts of the present case, since the issue under deliberation waspertaining to provision for bad and doubtful debts and theclaim of assessee in the computation sheet without recordingthe provision in the books of account was also under the samehead thus has a nexus with the issue raised in application u/s154, and also apparent on the face of the computation of totalincome, therefore, in our considered opinion the rectificationrequested by the assessee, which was very much connected tothe claim of the assessee for provision for bad and doubtfuldebts without having been making a provision in the books ofaccounts, which was allowed earlier whereas the same is notpermissible under the provisions of Act. Accordingly, the factregarding assessee’s ineligible claim was a glaring and apparentmistake patent on the face of records, which was correctlyundertaken by the Ld. AO and rectified under the provision ofSection 154. 15.In view of the aforesaid finding of the tribunal inassessee’s own case, in absence of any objection or contrarymaterial or finding brought on record by either the assessee orby the revenue, we find it appropriate to remit the matter backto the file of Ld. AO to allow the deduction to the extent ofactual provision for bad debts made by the assessee bank in itsbooks of accounts for the relevant AY. Needless to say, in setaside proceedings the assessee shall be afforded withreasonable opportunity of being heard.” 7. Since the ITAT has remanded back the matter to the file of the AO to allow the deduction to the extent of actual provision for bad debtsmade by the assessee in its books of accounts for the relevantassessment year after verifying the records and after givingopportunity of hearing to the assessee, we do not find any substantialquestion of law for admission of this tax appeal. However, the Soma (Tax Case No.204/2024) assessee will be at liberty to raise all the points before the AO which it has raised before this Court in this tax appeal. Accordingly, thepresent tax appeal stands dismissed subject to the aforesaidobservation, but without there being any order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/-(Sanjay K. Agrawal)(Sachin Singh Rajput)JUDGEJUDGE