IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A. NO. 260 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, CANARA TOWERS MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD UDUPI-576 101, MANGALORE. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (1), UDUPI-576101. APPELLANTS (By Sri. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK H.O. ACCOUNTS DEPT. MANIPAL. RESPONDENT (By Sri. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) 2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16/3/2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.116/BANG/2008 AND 225/BANG/2008, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, PRAYING TO FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. SET ASIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16/3/2011 PASSED BY ITAT, BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.116/BANG/2008 AND 225/BANG/2008, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL, IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr. E. I. Sanmathi, learned counsel for revenue. Mr. T. Sooryanarayan, learned counsel for assessee. This appeal has been filed by revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short), which was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.06.2012 on following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Tribunal was right in law in holding that reversal of 3 interest on Non Performing Assets (NPA) amounts to bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) when RBI circular dated 4.7.2002 does not term same as bad debts and is silent on mode of claiming deduction under provisions of I.T.Act and more over there is no such provision under I.T. Act for reversal of interest? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction claimed towards bad and doubtful debts without making provision and without considering that section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are separate and independent, apart from that assessee s claim under Section 36(1)(viia) of I.T. Act? (iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case tribunal s order can be considered as perverse in nature since tribunal has allowed assessee s appeal by over-looking provisions of I.T. Act? 4 (iv) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case tribunal was right in law in allowing interest on zero coupon bonds even when interest on zero coupon bonds is not exempt income under provisions of I.T. Act and assessee had shown interest income in books of account? 2. When matter was taken up today, learned counsel for parties jointly submitted that substantial question of law Nos.1 and 4 are covered by judgment rendered by this Court in ITA No.98/2010 and ITA No.18/2014 decided on 23.01.2020 and 16.01.2020 respectively. It is further submitted that substantial question of law Nos.2 and 3 do not arise for consideration as same have not been decided by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on account of want of COD clearance. 3. In view of aforesaid submissions, substantial question of law Nos.1 and 4 are answered in 5 terms of judgment passed in order dated 23.01.2020 in ITA No.98/2010 and ITA No.18/2014 dated 16.01.2020. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss CIT-III, Bangalore / ACIT, Circle-1, Udupi / DCIT, Circle-(1), Udupi v. Syndicate Bank