Rp/530/2010 Of The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013/2ND MAGHA 1934 RP.No. 530 of 2010 ( ) IN ITA.485/2009 --------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ITA.NO.485/2009 DATED 16-12-2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT) ---------------------------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2013, ALONG WITH RP.NO.70 OF 2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.NO.530/2010 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: APPENDIX ANNEX ACOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/12/2009 IN ITA.NO.1183 OF 2009 OF FULL BENCH. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.M.JOSEPH, HARUN-UL-RASHID & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------RP.530/2010 in ITA.485/2009, RP.647/2010 in ITA 1183/2009, RP.69/2013 in ITA.772/2009, RP.70/2013 in ITA.1177/2009 &RP. 71/2013 in ITA.1236/2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2013ORDER Joseph,J. Full Bench by the impugned judgment proceeded todispose of the appeals on the basis that the question which wasreferred to in all these appeals is as to whether by virtue of theprohibition contained in the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of theIncome Tax Act the respondents Banks are entitled to deductionof bad debts written off which is not in excess of the creditbalance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account madeunder clause (viia) of Section 36 (1) of the Act. The complaintof the review petitioners is that this is not a question which arosein any of the appeals which stands disposed of by the impugnedjudgment answering the question which was referred to.Therefore those questions would have to be considered by theappropriate bench dealing with the matter. In suchcircumstances in view of the common case in this regard the RP.530/2010 in ITA.485/2009 & conn. Cases. 2 review petitions are only to be allowed. We allow the reviewpetitions. The judgment passed in the appeals will standrecalled and appeals would be restored to file and it will beplaced before appropriate bench for being dealt with. pmn/ K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE RP.530/2010 in ITA.485/2009 & conn. Cases. 3