2021 (7) TMI 793 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of Bad Debts - HELD THAT - We find that granting of loan was assessee's business and interest income would be business income for the assessee. If the interest was offered to tax and the same could not be subsequently recovered then in such a case the assessee would be entitle for claim of bad-debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) provided the amount was written-off as irrecoverable in the books of account. Prima facie, the assessee has fulfilled the conditions laid down u/s. 36(1)(vii). Therefore, we direct Ld. CIT(A) to ascertain the fact that the interest was offered to tax by the assessee and write-off of the same was claimed as bad-debts in the books during the year. If so, the claim would be allowable u/s. 36(1)(vii) in terms of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in TRF Ltd. 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT . The ground stand allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of referral fee - it was concluded by Ld. AO that the assessee failed to produce evidences to support the referral fees paid by it - HELD THAT - As submitted that the payment was as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 21/03/2011 which specify the terms of reference. The referral fee thus received by M/s. NSBL was offered to tax. The payment was after deduction of tax at source which is supported by TDS certificates. Keeping in view the submissions made before us, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to appreciate all these evidences/documentary evidences and re-adjudicate the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate its claim. This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of disallowance of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) and disallowance of referral fees paid.

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Bad Debts:
The appellant contested the disallowance of ?11,67,645 under section 36(1)(vii) by the Ld. CIT (A) concerning interest receivable on a loan given to a party named Rajhoo Bharot. The appellant argued that the amount was written off as a bad debt due to the borrower's inability to repay, and thus, the disallowance was unjustified. However, the Ld. CIT (A) found that the interest amount was not acknowledged as a debt by the borrower, and the conditions under section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The Ld. CIT (A) concluded that the write-off could not be claimed as a revenue deduction. The ITAT directed the Ld. CIT (A) to verify if the interest was offered to tax and written off as bad debts, following the decision in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

2. Disallowance of Referral Fee:
The appellant also challenged the disallowance of ?17,14,430 paid as referral fees to Networth Stock Broking Ltd. The Ld. AO found the appellant failed to provide evidence to support the referral fees paid and noted additional charges paid for infrastructural facilities. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld the disallowance, emphasizing the lack of justification for the payment and failure to furnish proof of tax deduction at source. The ITAT directed the issue to be reconsidered, emphasizing the need for proper justification and evidence, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded back to the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication on both issues.