2006 (11) TMI 99 - HC - Income Tax

Two issue arises(i) Once the assessee debited the account with a particular amount of debt which is become bad, that amount should be allowed as bad debt (ii) whether assessee is entitled for deduction for the goods not exported from India u/s 80HHC of the ITA,1961 - Held (i) no (ii) no

Summary

Issues:
1. Deduction of bad debts under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Entitlement for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deduction of Bad Debts
The Tribunal was asked to opine on the justification of disallowing bad debts in the case of two entities despite no strict requirement for determining the basis of non-payment by debtors under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main contention was that once a debt is deemed bad and written off by the assessee, it should be allowed as a bad debt. The Tribunal noted that not all debts, regardless of recoverability, can be classified as bad debts. It emphasized the need for establishing the bad debt status, even though the strict proof requirement was eliminated. The Tribunal found that internal differences between the assessee and the debtors led to non-payment, indicating that the debts were not inherently bad. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, stating that not all debts are allowable as bad debts, and supported the view that the debts in question were not bad debts within the relevant assessment year. The Court concurred, emphasizing that a debt must be proven as irrecoverable to qualify as a bad debt for deduction under section 36.

Issue 2: Entitlement for Deduction under Section 80HHC
The Tribunal examined whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction under Section 80HHC concerning goods purchased from one country and exported to another. The assessment year being 1989-90, the provisions of section 80HHC had changed to base the deduction on 'export turnover' rather than net foreign exchange realization. Export turnover was defined to include sale proceeds received in India in convertible foreign exchange. The Tribunal highlighted that the export of goods or merchandise must be from India to qualify for relief under section 80HHC. It noted that the assessee did not export any goods from India to the destination country but directly supplied goods from a different country. As a result, the Tribunal rejected the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC, emphasizing the necessity for the export to originate from India to avail the relief. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the deduction under Section 80HHC is contingent on the export of goods or merchandise from India.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions on both issues, denying the deduction of bad debts and rejecting the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC due to the lack of exports originating from India. The Court clarified that if the bad debt status changes in subsequent years, the assessee can seek deduction accordingly.