9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1116 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance on account of bad debts written off - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has made a claim of bad debts in the financial statements/books of accounts the details whereof are available in the paper book - The assessee has also furnished the invoices raised in respect of which the bad debts were written off with journal entries passed for effecting those entries. We find that the authorities below have observed that amount claimed as bad debts were not correlated to the income of the earlier year which is wrong as the cross reference of the invoices which have been written off as non recoverable have duly been submitted by the assessee before the authorities below. We are of the considered view that assessee is entitled to the claim of bad debts in terms of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. Moreover, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Apex Court has held that mere claim of bad debts would be suffice and the bad debts ought to be allowed in terms of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow the claim of bad debts to the assessee. Ground No.1 is allowed. Addition on account of unaccounted receipts - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2018 (5) TMI 249 - ITAT MUMBAI Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition without making any further enquiry. As rightly observed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the minimum the Assessing Officer could have done is to issue notices under section 133(6) or 131 of the Act to the concerned parties whose identities were available before the Assessing Officer, to ascertain the correct fact. When the assessee has asserted before the Assessing Officer that it has not received any such income, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to make proper enquiry before concluding that the disputed amount was earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. Instead of doing that the Assessing Officer has made the addition simply on the basis of AIR information, which, in our view is absolutely Incorrect. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance being 10% under various heads - HELD THAT - We note that the assessee has attached sample bills from page No.141 to 152 in respect of subscription expenses and printing and copying expenses. Besides the assessee has also filed the ledger account of miscellaneous expenses along with sample bills at page No.3 to 8. We note that the disallowance made by the authorities below is purely on adhoc basis and is on the higher side. We note that no such disallowance was made either in the subsequent year or in the earlier years. In our opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- is disallowed out of these expenses. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to add only ₹ 1,00,000/-. Ground No.3 is partly allowed
Issues:
1. Disallowance of bad debts written off. 2. Addition of unaccounted receipts. 3. Disallowance of sundry expenses. Issue 1 - Disallowance of Bad Debts Written Off: The appeal was against the disallowance of ?72,12,274 by the CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of bad debts written off. The assessee had written off bad debts in the P&L Account during the year. The AO rejected the claim due to lack of documentary evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal. The assessee argued citing the Apex Court decision in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC) that bad debts written off should be allowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The ITAT found that the assessee had provided details and invoices relating to the bad debts, which were not correlated to the income of earlier years. The ITAT allowed the claim of bad debts based on the provided evidence and set aside the CIT(A) order. Issue 2 - Addition of Unaccounted Receipts: The issue was about the addition of ?58,060 by the CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of unaccounted receipts. The assessee was unable to provide details for a small portion of the reconciled income, leading to 0.06% being treated as unaccounted receipt. The ITAT referred to a similar case where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee due to the AO's failure to make proper inquiries before making the addition based on AIR information. Following the precedent, the ITAT directed the AO to delete the disallowance. Issue 3 - Disallowance of Sundry Expenses: The dispute was regarding the part confirmation of disallowance of ?3,09,631, being 10% of ?30,96,315 under various heads of expenses. The AO added ?6,19,263 as 1/5th of the sundry expenses due to lack of verification. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by restricting the disallowance to 10% of the total expenses. The ITAT found that the disallowance was adhoc and on the higher side. Sample bills and ledger accounts were submitted by the assessee. The ITAT modified the order, directing the AO to add only ?1,00,000 as disallowance. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed on this issue. In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues, allowing the claim of bad debts written off, directing deletion of the addition of unaccounted receipts, and reducing the disallowance of sundry expenses.
|
