2015 (9) TMI 1109 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - assessee has claimed depreciation at 5.24 Crores on WDV of 6.32 Crores which is 83% of the WDV - Held that - On verification of computation of income filed along with return of income as well as perusal of the order indicate that assessee has not claimed any depreciation while claiming only loss incurred in the business. Therefore, question of disallowing the depreciation does not arise. From the table of un-absorbed business loss/depreciation to be carried over, it is evident that the depreciation claimed was only ₹ 61,02,857/- on the part of assets used in the business. Since the disallowance of ₹ 5,70,47,031/- of depreciation does not arise on the facts of the case, we agree with assessee s contentions and direct the AO to delete the addition so made. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowances towards advances which include capital goods - Held that - Assessee pleaded that they were not in the business at that point of time during the period of completion of assessment and now they have restarted the business, they were in a position to furnish the necessary details. In view of that, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity can be given to assessee to substantiate the claims made in the return of income / P&L A/c. Assessee is directed to furnish necessary details to AO and AO to examine whether the amounts can be allowed as write off as per the provisions of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Treating unsecured loans as income u/s. 68 - Held that - In the absence of any confirmation for increase in the unsecured loans during the year, both AO and CIT(A) treated the same as the income of assessee. Even though, there is failure on the part of assessee in furnishing necessary confirmations towards increase in unsecured loans, there is nothing on record to indicate that unsecured loans arise either due to fresh credit. It could be due to increase in interest on the existing loans. Therefore, without examining the details, it is not possible to confirm the same just because, assessee could not furnish any details. Here also Ld. Counsel pleaded that assessee can furnish necessary details before the AO. In view of this, this ground is restored to the file of AO to examine the nature of credit and treat accordingly as per the provisions of law and facts - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of bad debts written off - disallowance of an amount of ₹ 1,69,89,612/- towards bad debts written off - Held that - Consequent to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd Vs. CIT 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT , there is no necessity for assessee to justify the bad debts written off. It would be satisfying the provisions, if the amounts are actually written off in the Books of Accounts, being trading nature as irrecoverable. As and when they are recovered, the same are automatically to be taxed under the provisions of Section 41(1). In view of the specific provisions of Section 36(1)(vii), write off of the amount is enough to allow the same. As there is no dispute with reference to the fact that these amounts are not capital in nature, AO is directed to allow the amounts - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of advances written off
2. Disallowance of unsecured loans
3. Disallowance of depreciation
4. Disallowance of bad debts written off

Disallowance of Advances Written Off:
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of advances written off, including capital goods. The AO disallowed the entire amount as a capital loss due to lack of details provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance. The assessee requested another opportunity to furnish necessary details, as they had restarted their business and could now provide the required information. The Tribunal agreed to give the assessee another chance to substantiate their claims and directed them to furnish the necessary details to the AO for re-examination. This ground was considered allowed for statistical purposes.

Disallowance of Unsecured Loans:
The issue revolved around treating an amount of unsecured loans as income under section 68. The AO and CIT(A) treated the unsecured loans as income due to the lack of confirmation for the increase in loans during the year. The assessee failed to provide necessary confirmations, but it was argued that the increase in unsecured loans could be due to interest on existing loans rather than fresh credit. The Tribunal decided to restore this ground to the AO for further examination of the nature of credit and treatment according to the law and facts. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Disallowance of Depreciation:
The AO disallowed a significant amount of depreciation claimed by the assessee on fixed assets, citing lack of proof for the existence of the assets. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance based on an inspector's report. However, the assessee contended that they did not claim any depreciation on the assets in question while filing for a net loss. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that since no depreciation was claimed, there was no basis for disallowing it. The AO was directed to delete the disallowed depreciation amount. This ground was accordingly allowed.

Disallowance of Bad Debts Written Off:
The issue involved the disallowance of bad debts written off by the assessee. While the bad debts were actually written off in the books of accounts, the AO and CIT(A) did not allow the amount due to lack of necessary details provided by the assessee. Citing the Supreme Court decision in the case of T.R.F. Ltd Vs. CIT, the Tribunal ruled that if the bad debts were genuinely written off in the books of accounts, there was no need for further justification. The AO was directed to allow the bad debts written off as they were of a trading nature and not capital in nature. This ground was considered allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on various grounds related to disallowances made by the AO, directing re-examination and providing opportunities for the assessee to substantiate their claims. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.