2011 (6) TMI 860 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 56,49,077/- in respect of bad debts written off.
2. Depreciation of Rs. 9,89,487/- on Rs. 39,57,950/-.
3. Disallowance of deduction of Rs. 13,59,000/- representing the amount of stock written off.
4. Disallowance of deduction of Rs. 37,61,506/- in respect of selling and distribution expenses.
5. Addition of notional interest of Rs. 7,54,394/-.
6. Disallowance of Rs. 5,370/- representing penalty for delayed payment of PF.
7. Levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the IT Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 56,49,077/- in respect of bad debts written off:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 56,49,077/- for bad debts written off, arguing that the write-off is allowable under section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. The AO rejected the claim, stating that the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons for writing off the debts, especially since most debtors were government entities. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, noting that the assessee did not provide evidence to show that the debts had become irrecoverable. However, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in T.R.F. Ltd., which clarified that post-April 1, 1989, it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and remitted the matter back to the AO for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision.

2. Depreciation of Rs. 9,89,487/- on Rs. 39,57,950/-:
The assessee did not press this ground of appeal since the CIT(A) had already directed the AO to verify the claim. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as not pressed.

3. Disallowance of deduction of Rs. 13,59,000/- representing the amount of stock written off:
The AO disallowed the claim for writing off obsolete stock, stating that the assessee did not provide supporting evidence or a technical report. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, noting that some items were issued just three months before the accounting year and could not be considered obsolete. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with these findings, as the claim was unsupported by evidence.

4. Disallowance of deduction of Rs. 37,61,506/- in respect of selling and distribution expenses:
The AO disallowed the claim for selling and distribution expenses, noting that the assessee failed to provide evidence of services rendered by Mr. Larsing M. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, emphasizing that the assessee did not prove the genuineness of the expenditure. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the business purpose of the expenditure.

5. Addition of notional interest of Rs. 7,54,394/-:
The AO added notional interest on advances given to associate concerns, arguing that the assessee paid heavy interest on borrowed funds while giving interest-free advances. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. However, the Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified, noting that the assessee had sufficient profits to cover the advances and that no notional interest could be charged. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the addition.

6. Disallowance of Rs. 5,370/- representing penalty for delayed payment of PF:
The CIT(A) disallowed the deduction for penalty on delayed payment of PF, which the assessee did not contest. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with this decision, and the ground was dismissed.

7. Levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the IT Act:
The interest levied under sections 234B and 234D was considered consequential. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, noting that it was not argued or pressed.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal setting aside certain additions and remitting the matter back to the AO for reconsideration, while upholding other disallowances. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 17-06-2011.

← Previous Next →