2014 (12) TMI 213 - AT - Income Tax

Deductions on bad debts disallowed Held that - Relying upon TRF Ltd. vs. CIT 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT wherein the AO was directed to verify whether the debt has been written off in the accounts of the assessee or not - the accounts of the assessee culminate in P&L account and balance sheet - The claim of bad debts is not reflected in P&L account whereas any account relating to expense or loss has to be debited to P&L account - Since there is no debit of bad debts in the appellant s P&L account it cannot be said that the claim was written off in the accounts - assessee contended that the finding of CIT(A) that there was no break-up extra-ordinary and exceptional items in the Audit Report is ex-facie incorrect - assessee further contended that the notes contain the complete details of the amount debited as exceptional and extra-ordinary items in the profit and loss - the only reservation of the AO is that the appellant has shown the amount of bad debts written of under the head of exceptional and extra-ordinary items in the P&L A/c and thereby has debited only ₹ 33,25,76,167/- in the profit and loss account that too in the profit and loss appropriation account. The provisions of section 36(1)(vii) do not contain the requirement of writing off the bad debts to the profit and loss account of the Assessee what the provision mandates that the amount of any bad debt or part thereof should be written off as irrecoverable in the Accounts of the Assessee for the previous year - assessee emphasized that the provision requires writing off in the accounts of the assessee not in the profit and loss account, the ledger accounts of the parties form part of the accounts, maintained by the assessee - Therefore, the requirements of Section 36(1)(vii) are duly complied with the contentions of assessee is upheld and the findings of CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to AO for verification Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order.
2. Disallowance of deduction for bad debts amounting to Rs. 117.17 crores.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order:
The appellant contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in omitting to consider Ground No.1 of the appeal, which challenged the validity of the assessment order. However, the judgment does not provide further analysis or resolution on this issue, focusing instead on the disallowance of bad debts.

2. Disallowance of Deduction for Bad Debts:
The primary issue in the appeal was the disallowance of the bad debts deduction amounting to Rs. 117.17 crores. The appellant argued that this issue was covered by the Supreme Court judgment in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC), which stated that it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.

Arguments by the Appellant:
- The appellant's counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the bad debts claim on the grounds that only Rs. 33.25 crores were debited to the profit and loss (P&L) appropriation account, and not the entire amount of Rs. 117.17 crores.
- The appellant contended that the AO's finding was against the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in TRF Ltd., which held that writing off the bad debt in the accounts is sufficient.
- The appellant provided detailed notes from the Annual Report, specifically Schedule-18, which included "Accounting Policies and Notes forming part of Accounts." This showed that Rs. 117.17 crores were written off as bad debt due to disputes with two distributors and were reflected in the accounts as part of exceptional and extraordinary items.
- The appellant argued that the grouping of items for presentation purposes in the P&L account does not negate the fact that the bad debt was written off in the accounts.

Arguments by the Respondent:
- The CIT-DR supported the orders of the authorities below, maintaining that there was no illegality in the disallowance of the bad debts claim.
- The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, stating that the bad debts were not debited to the P&L account, which is a requirement for claiming such deductions under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.

Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal reviewed the rival contentions and the material on record, including the case laws relied upon.
- It found that the AO rejected the bad debts claim because only Rs. 33.25 crores were debited to the P&L appropriation account, not the full amount of Rs. 117.17 crores.
- The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had observed that the appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd., which directed the AO to verify whether the debt had been written off in the accounts.
- The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the requirement under Section 36(1)(vii) is to write off the bad debt in the accounts, not necessarily in the P&L account.
- It emphasized that the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) do not mandate writing off bad debts specifically in the P&L account, but rather in the accounts of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had complied with the requirements of Section 36(1)(vii) by writing off the bad debt in the accounts. It set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and directed the AO to verify whether the debt was written off in the accounts of the assessee and allow the claim accordingly. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with instructions for the AO to re-examine the write-off.

Result:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the write-off of the debt in the accounts and allow the claim if the condition is met.