9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 508 - AT - Income TaxAdvances written off by the assessee - business loss allowability - Held that - FAA held that same could be allowed as per provisions of section 28 of the Act i.e. as a business loss and that the assessee had not produced sufficient evidence to support the claim. As gone through the details available on pages 173, 180-181 of the Paper book. The nature of the advances clearly prove that the assessee had advanced certain amounts for business purposes only. Advances to the employees or advances made for cylinders have to be held to made for carrying out business of the assessee. As far as genuineness of the expenditure is concerned, we find that the AO and FAA have not held that sums were not advanced. The expenses were of revenue nature. As there was direct and intimate relation between the advances made and the business of the assessee, same has to be allowed as regular business expenditure u/s.37 of the Act. It can also be allowed as business loss as per section 28.In short advances written off cannot be disallowed in any manner.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Interest on incremental loans given to subsidiaries/sister concerns after 31.05.1996. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Advances written off during the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. 4. Unreconciled ITS transaction for the assessment year 2008-09. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interest on Incremental Loans Given to Subsidiaries/Sister Concerns After 31.05.1996: The Tribunal adjudicated on the issue of interest on incremental loans given to subsidiaries/sister concerns after 31.05.1996, which was covered by the orders of the Tribunal for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 to 2006-07. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, affirming that the interest on such loans should be allowed. This decision was based on the precedent set in earlier years, where similar issues were resolved favorably for the assessee. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. This issue was similarly covered by previous Tribunal orders for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 to 2006-07, which had decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the previous decisions, ruling that the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted. 3. Advances Written Off During the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09: The Tribunal examined the issue of advances written off by the assessee during the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed these write-offs, arguing that they did not qualify as bad debts under Section 36(1) of the Income Tax Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the advances did not meet the criteria for bad debts but could be considered as business losses under Section 28 of the Act. However, the FAA found that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of business loss. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the advances, including travel advances to employees, deposits for industrial gas cylinders, advances to suppliers, salary/wages advances, and TDS written off, were directly related to the business of the assessee and were of a revenue nature. The Tribunal concluded that these advances should be allowed as regular business expenditure under Section 37 or as business losses under Section 28. The Tribunal cited relevant case law, including the decisions in Sterling Agro Products Processing Pvt. Ltd. and Madhav Marbles, to support its conclusion. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the write-off of advances for all three assessment years. 4. Unreconciled ITS Transaction for the Assessment Year 2008-09: For the assessment year 2008-09, the AO had added an amount of ?3.59 lakhs to the assessee's total income under the head of unexplained cash credit, invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The FAA, however, held that the assessee had reconciled almost all contract receipts except for a minor amount due to non-availability of information. The FAA noted that the unreconciled amount was minuscule compared to the total contract receipts and that there was no indication of cash receipt from any party. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions, agreed with the FAA's findings. It emphasized that the unreconciled amount was insignificant in the context of the total contract receipts and upheld the FAA's decision to delete the addition made by the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal decided this issue against the AO. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the AO were dismissed. The Tribunal's order was pronounced in the open court on May 2, 2018.
|
