2017 (10) TMI 1076 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of the amounts written off as unrecoverable from different parties - Held that - As regards the two remaining parties Nandlal Arvind and Co and Shrenikbhai Sheth Mehsana, no specific objections are raised by the Assessing Officer as also the CIT(A). To this extent, therefore, the claim for deduction is virtually uncontested and must be allowed. As regards the write off of the amount in respect of M/s Contacts, there is nothing on the record to show as to on what considerations the amount was advanced to the said concern. It is, therefore, not possible to come to a conclusion that the said amount was advanced in the course of business which is a sine qua non for deductibility of the said amount as bad debt. However, so far as debits on account of interest charged on the said amount are concerned, as long as assessee can demonstrate that these interest debits, at the time of corresponding credit to interest income, were offered to tax, the assessee will be fully entitled to claim deduction in respect of the write off an income which never fructified. On this aspect of the matter, deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to allow deduction in respect of writing off interest debited to the account of M/s Contacts, in case the assessee can demonstrate that the corresponding interest income was indeed offered to tax in the earlier years.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2006-07, Disallowance of bad debts amounting to &8377; 15,07,448, Deduction in respect of amounts written off as unrecoverable from different parties, Business purpose of advances made, Deductibility of bad debt amount, Treatment of interest debits in relation to bad debt write-off.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was against the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of &8377; 15,07,448 claimed as bad debts. The Assessing Officer noted the lack of supporting evidence for the claimed deduction during the best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for details and a remand report on the matter. It was found that the bad debts were related to three parties, with one party having a significant outstanding amount. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the grounds that the advances were not given in the course of business, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal observed that specific objections were not raised regarding two out of the three parties, indicating uncontested deduction claims for those amounts. However, regarding the significant amount written off in respect of one party, the Tribunal found a lack of evidence on the business purpose of the advances. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of demonstrating that the advances were made in the course of business for deductibility as bad debt. Nevertheless, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for interest debits if the corresponding interest income was previously offered to tax, remitting the matter for further assessment.

Ultimately, the Tribunal partially upheld the assessee's grievances, allowing the deduction for uncontested amounts but requiring further substantiation for the significant bad debt write-off. The appeal was partially allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper consideration in line with the Tribunal's directions.