9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (3) TMI 613 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance - Bad debts - whether the respondent-assessee could claim a deduction on the basis of the bad debt written off was re-examined - Since the assessee had taken over the assets and liabilities of the predecessor firm and since the successor firm continued the business and was even assessed to tax on the income accrued on the debt which was taken over the assessee could write off the debts and claim deduction thereof - It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid provision that an assessee is entitled to a deduction equivalent to the amount of a written off debt, under section 36(1)(vii) of the 1961 Act - There is also no material whatsoever on the record of this case, on the basis whereof an inference can be drawn that the respondent-assessee was treating the aforesaid debt as its income - assessee did not fulfil one of the aforestated mandatory conditions, namely, the debt in question was never reflected in the accounts of the respondent-assessee as its income, the respondent-assessee would not be entitled to a deduction on the basis of its having written off the debt under reference - Decided against the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of bad debt of Rs. 1,30,242 as a deduction in the assessment of the assessee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Factual Context: The business of M/s. Lal Woollen and Silk Mills, which included several branches, was taken over by two companies, one of which is the respondent-assessee. The respondent-assessee commenced its business on July 1, 1972. A sum of Rs. 1,30,242 was recoverable by M/s. Lal Woollen and Silk Mills, and this asset allegedly fell to the share of the respondent-assessee, who declared these debts as irrecoverable and wrote them off as a bad debt in the assessment year 1976-77. The Assessing Officer initially accepted this claim and allowed the deduction. 2. Appeal to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals): The respondent-assessee appealed against the Assessing Officer's decision. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Amritsar, re-examined the issue and concluded that the respondent-assessee was not entitled to the deduction under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. Tribunal's Decision: The respondent-assessee appealed to the Tribunal, which accepted the appeal, relying on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao and Co. [1976] 102 ITR 604 (AP). The Tribunal concluded that the deduction under section 36(2)(i)(b) was available to the succeeding assessee, and the person claiming the deduction need not be the same assessee who originally accounted for the debt. 4. Supreme Court's Affirmation: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao and Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 (SC), which was brought to the notice of the court by the respondent-assessee's counsel. 5. Legal Provisions and Interpretation: The relevant provisions under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were examined, particularly section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2)(i). The court noted that for a deduction to be allowed under section 36(1)(vii), it must meet the conditions in section 36(2), including that the debt has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee for the previous year or an earlier year, or represents money lent in the ordinary course of business. 6. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the debt of Rs. 1,30,242 was never depicted as the income of the respondent-assessee in any previous year, thus failing to meet the essential conditions for the deduction under section 36(2)(i). 7. Court's Analysis and Conclusion: The court found no material evidence that the respondent-assessee had shown the debt as its income. The court distinguished the present case from the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision, noting that in the latter case, the assessee had expressly shown the debt as its income and paid tax on it. In contrast, the respondent-assessee in the present case did not reflect the debt as its income, and there was no evidence to support such a claim. 8. Final Judgment: The court concluded that since the respondent-assessee did not fulfil the mandatory condition of reflecting the debt as its income, it was not entitled to the deduction for the written-off debt. The reference was answered in favor of the applicant-Revenue and against the respondent-assessee. The case was disposed of accordingly.
|
