(cid:1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P. AND MS. PADMAVATHY S., AM (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

M/s Bank of Baroda CIT(Appeals), (Erstwhile Dena Bank), Circle-2(1)(1), 2^nd Floor, Baroda Corporate Centre, Mumbai.

Bandra Kurla Complext, Vs.

Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 PAN/GIR No. AAACB 1534F (Applicant) : (Respondent Applicant by : Shri S. Ananthan, &

Ms. Lalitha Rameswaran Respondent by : Shri Rakesh Ranjan, CIT (DR)

Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP:

The captioned appeal by the assessee arises out of order dated 30.01.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

2. In Ground No.1, assessee has challenged disallowance of deduction claimed of Rs.591,79,00,000/- u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’).

3. Briefly the facts are, assessee is a Nationalized Bank engaged in the business of banking. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee had filed its return of income on 30.09.2019 declaring loss of Rs.5163,86,13,556/-. Subsequently, the assessee also filed a revised return of income claiming brought forward loss. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.4620,87,19,739/- on account of bad debts written off in terms of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. On verification of details of the claim, the AO observed that against the provision made for doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the assessee had adjusted debts relating to rural branches. Whereas, the debts relating to non-rural branches have not been adjusted against the provision so made. According to the AO, against the provision made u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the debts relating to, both, rural and non-rural branches have to be adjusted. Accordingly, he concluded that the assessee has claimed excess deduction of Rs.591.79 crores on account of write off of bad debts. Hence, he disallowed the deduction claimed to that extent. Though, the assessee contested the disallowance before learned First Appellate Authority, however, it was not successful.

4. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench not only in assessee’s own case but in case of various other Banks. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:

1. Bank of Baroda (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) 2022 (3) TMI 669-ITAT Bangalore

2. Karnataka Bank 2022 (5) TMI 1537 – ITAT Bangalore

3. Union Bank of India (erstwhile Corporation Bank) 2025 (2) TMI 530 – ITAT Mumbai

4. Bank of Baroda (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) ITA Nos. 1032, 1033 & 1040 /

Bang/2024 for Asstt. Years 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 order dated

28.11.2024.

5. Though, learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the observations of the AO and learned First Appellate Authority, however, he could not controvert assessee’s submission that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case and in case of other banks.

6. Having considered rival submissions, we find, identical issue came up for consideration in assessee’s own case before the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal. While deciding the issue, the Tribunal in order dated 27.03.2018 in ITA Nos.1834 & 1839/Bng/2018 has held as under:

“16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We noticed that the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case (Supra) has held that "9.3 We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the co-ordinate bench has considered an identical issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 in ITA No.1284/Bang/2016 dated 05-01-2018 and it has been decided in favour of the assessee with the following observations:-

"5. Ground No.2 - Bad Debts written off u/s.36(1)(vii)

5.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the disallow