9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 911 - HC - Income TaxClaim of bad debts u/s 36 Held that - The Tribunal while allowing the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, as bad debts, relied upon Vijaya Bank v. CIT 2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT - where assessee bank had written off bad debt in its books by way of a debit to profit and loss account, simultaneously reducing corresponding amount from loans and advances to debtors depicted on assets side in balance sheet at close of year, the assessee- bank was entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(vii), it was not necessary for it to close individual account of each of its debtors in its books the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act for bad debts. 2. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions regarding bad debts. 3. Applicability of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act for bad debts The assessee, a cooperative bank, filed its return for A.Y. 2007-08 declaring income. During scrutiny assessment, the assessee claimed a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act for bad debts amounting to Rs. 2,18,05,392. However, the Assessing Officer denied this deduction, stating that the assessee was attempting to recover the amount treated as bad debts and even managed to recover some, which was then offered as income. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. Subsequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal by the assessee, granting the deduction for bad debts. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank v. CIT, emphasizing that writing off bad debts in the books entitles the bank to deduction under section 36(1)(vii), without the necessity of closing individual debtor accounts. The High Court concurred with the ITAT's decision, dismissing the appeal by the revenue. Issue 2: Interpretation of relevant legal provisions regarding bad debts The central legal question revolved around whether the ITAT was justified in allowing the claim of bad debts which had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The ITAT's decision was supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Vijaya Bank v. CIT, which clarified that writing off bad debts in the books enables deduction under section 36(1)(vii). The High Court, in alignment with the ITAT and Supreme Court precedent, upheld the deduction for bad debts claimed by the assessee, emphasizing the treatment of bad debts in the bank's books as a valid basis for the deduction. Issue 3: Applicability of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules The ITAT's decision also addressed the applicability of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, which the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had relied on for disallowing the deduction. The ITAT, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, held that Rule 8D was not applicable for the relevant assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer, directing a fresh decision in line with the law, specifically the judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the revenue, affirming the ITAT's decision to allow the deduction for bad debts claimed by the cooperative bank, based on the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
|
