(Tax Case No.204/2024) 2025:CGHC:34751-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 204 of 2024 {Arising out of order dated 29-5-2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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. Amit Chaudhari, Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 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’). SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.07.22 18:46:01 +0530 (Tax Case No.204/2024) 2. The assessee/appellant herein filed its return of income on 6-1-2011 by 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 on 29-8-2011 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 back as the same did not find place in the computation of income of previous assessment year 2009-10 (financial year 2008-09) and offered to taxation as per the assessment order and also added ₹ 5,20,347/- to the income of the assessee disallowing the employees contribution under Section 36(va) of the IT Act to Contributory Pension Fund as it was beyond the due date, and thus, the total addition was erroneously calculated as 29,99,72,930/- instead of ₹ ₹ 24,99,72,929/- and accordingly, demand of 12,58,71,660/- was ₹ raised, which was sought to be rectified by the rectification application filed 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 of account of the assessee feeling aggrieved against which the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (Appeals) under Section 246A of the IT Act in Form-35 which was allowed by the CIT (Appeals) by order dated 19-2-2018 against which the Revenue preferred appeal before (Tax Case No.204/2024) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur. The ITAT by its impugned order allowing the appeal preferred by the Revenue, remanded back the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to allow the deduction to the extent of actual provision for bad debts made by the assessee in its books of accounts for the relevant assessment year after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the ITAT, the assessee has preferred the instant appeal. 3. Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/assessee, would submit that the ITAT while allowing the appeal in part could not have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for afresh determination. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue/respondent herein, would support the impugned order and oppose the present tax appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In fact, the learned ITAT after hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the record held in paragraphs 12 and 15 as under: - “12. Adverting to the first contention of the assessee that since the assessee has not pointed out and the mistake regarding claim of assessee for provision of bad debts which was not recorded in the books of assessee is not apparent from (Tax Case No.204/2024) the assessment order, therefore, the addition of Rs. 8,10,72,135/- cannot be made under the provisions of section 154. Ld. CIT(A) had also made the observations on this issue that the rectification u/s 154 can only be made when glaring mistake of law has been committed in the order which is apparent from the record. On a thoughtful consideration of the facts of the present case, since the issue under deliberation was pertaining to provision for bad and doubtful debts and the claim of assessee in the computation sheet without recording the provision in the books of account was also under the same head thus has a nexus with the issue raised in application u/s 154, and also apparent on the face of the computation of total income, therefore, in our considered opinion the rectification requested by the assessee, which was very much connected to the claim of the assessee for provision for bad and doubtful debts without having been making a provision in the books of accounts, which was allowed earlier whereas the same is not permissible under the provisions of Act. Accordingly, the fact regarding assessee’s ineligible claim was a glaring and apparent mistake patent on the face of records, which was correctly undertaken by the Ld. AO and rectified under the provision of Section 154. 15. In view of the aforesaid finding of the tribunal in assessee’s own case, in absence of any objection or contrary material or finding brought on record by either the assessee or by the revenue, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO to allow the deduction to the extent of actual provision for bad debts made by the assessee bank in its books of accounts for the relevant AY. Needless to say, in set aside proceedings the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable 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 debts made by the assessee in its books of accounts for the relevant assessment year after verifying the records and after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee, we do not find any substantial question of law for admission of this tax appeal. However, the (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, the present tax appeal stands dismissed subject to the aforesaid observation, but without there being any order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE Soma