2022 (2) TMI 974 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of Provisions for trade receivable as debited to P L account under the head other expenses - HELD THAT - Trade receivables which stood as on 31/03/2014 is substantially reduced as on 31/03/2015 which clearly indicates that assessee should have received the payment from the trade receivables or assessee must have written off the above said balances. From the P L Account, the details submitted under the head Other expenses which carried narration Provision for trade receivables . When compared with the balance-sheet figure of trade receivables, it clearly indicate that assessee has actually wrote off the trade receivables and claimed bad debt. Just because the narration used by the assessee as provision for trade receivables, but in fact, it is only actual loss / expenditure claimed by the assessee which can be classified under the head bad debts as per section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, we have to consider substance over the form and the intention of the assessee has to be appreciated and not the nomenclature noted to claim the expenses, it has merely mentioned the term provision it does not mean that it becomes provision. Therefore, we direct the assessing officer to delete the addition as it actually pertains to bad debts written off in the books of account. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of provisions for trade receivables as deduction under the Income-tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal filed by the assessee pertained to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessing officer had disallowed provisions for advance and trade receivables debited to the Profit & Loss account, stating that provisions are not allowed as deductions under the Income-tax Act. The assessee contended that the provisions for trade receivables were not liabilities but amounts receivable, citing relevant legal precedents such as the Supreme Court's decision in Apollo Tyres v. CIT. The assessee argued that the provisions were in accordance with mandatory accounting standards and should be allowable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee also referred to various judgments, including Vijaya Bank v. CIT, to support their case that the provisions should be considered as write-offs and allowed as deductions.

The CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee, stating that since the bad debts were not actually written off but only provisioned for, section 36(1)(vii) did not apply. The CIT(A) held that the provision for trade receivables was not an actual expenditure but a mere provision, hence not allowable as an expenditure under section 37(1). However, during the hearing, the assessee presented evidence showing a substantial reduction in trade receivables from the previous year, indicating that the amounts were either received or written off. The Profit & Loss Account also indicated the provision for trade receivables as bad debts. The Tribunal observed that the intention of the assessee should be appreciated over the nomenclature used, and based on the substance of the transaction, directed the assessing officer to delete the addition as it pertained to bad debts written off in the books of account.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing the substance of the transaction over the form and directing the deletion of the addition as it represented bad debts written off in the books of account. The decision highlighted the importance of understanding the intention behind the nomenclature used and considering the actual nature of the expenses claimed by the assessee.