2022 (9) TMI 101 - AT - Income Tax

Bad debts written off - Addition of sundry debtors written off - Amount in question written off as bad debt was not offered by the assessee company as its income in the year under consideration - as per revenue one of the conditions for allowing claim of the assessee for bad debt written off was not satisfied inasmuch as the fact that the amount of bad debts written off having already been offered by the assessee-company as its income in the year under consideration or in the earlier years was not established - HELD THAT - As rightly submitted by assessee in this regard, the claim of having raised the bills on the concerned creditors was duly made by the assessee while explaining the reasons before the AO for non-acceptance of the said bills by the concerned debtors. We also find merit in the contention of assessee that the fact that these amounts were appearing as sundry debtors in the books of account of the assessee shows that the corresponding bills were duly accounted for by the assessee in its books of account and the income was duly recognized. CIT(A) in paragraph No. 2.3 of his impugned order has clearly stated that these debts having been written off in the books of account of the assessee-company in the year under consideration and having already been credited as income in the preceding year(s), the same are allowable as expenditure under Section 36(1)(vii) - we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and upholding the same, we dismiss Ground No.1 of the Revenue s appeal. Disallowance of Attimari Coolie expenses - entire amount of Attimari Coolie expenses claimed by the assessee was disallowed by the Assessing Officer for want of supporting evidence without disputing or doubting that the said expenses were fully and exclusively incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business - CIT-A restricted addition @ 25% of total expenses - HELD THAT - we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue restricting the same to 25% which is quite fair and reasonable. Moreover, the learned CIT(A) has followed the order of his predecessor on a similar issue in assessee s case for AY 2009-10 where a similar disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was restricted to 25%. At the time of hearing before us, the learned DR has not brought on record anything to show that the said order of the learned CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue in the immediately preceding year i.e. AY 2009-10 was challenged by the Revenue and the same has been disturbed by the Tribunal. We, therefore, find no justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and upholding the same, we dismiss Ground No.2 of the Revenue s appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of bad debts written off.
2. Disallowance of Attimari Coolie expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Bad Debts Written Off:

The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of sundry debtors written off from Rs.2,87,24,679/- to Rs.6,14,213/-. The assessee, a company engaged in mechanical engineering and construction, had written off Rs.3,00,82,304/- as sundry debtors in its Profit and Loss Account. The AO, upon scrutiny, disallowed Rs.2,87,24,679/- due to the lack of evidence showing that the debts were credited and shown as payable in the debtor companies' books. The CIT(A), however, noted that the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd vs. CIT required only two conditions for bad debts to be claimed under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act: the debts must be written off in the assessee's accounts and must have been taken into account as income in the relevant or previous years. The CIT(A) found that the assessee met these conditions, except for debts totaling Rs.6,14,213/- for which no supporting details were provided. Consequently, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.6,14,213/-. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the amounts written off were reflected as sundry debtors, indicating that they were accounted for as income in previous years. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

2. Disallowance of Attimari Coolie Expenses:

The Revenue also contested the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of Attimari Coolie expenses to 25% of the total expenses. The assessee had claimed Rs.20,95,705/- under this head, explaining that these expenses were specific to the State of Kerala and related to head load and construction workers. The AO disallowed the entire amount due to the absence of supporting evidence. The CIT(A), however, restricted the disallowance to 25%, following a similar decision in the previous year. The ITAT found no infirmity in this approach, noting that the disallowance was made due to the unverifiable nature of the expenses rather than their business purpose. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it fair and reasonable, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground as well.

Conclusion:

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The disallowance of bad debts was restricted to Rs.6,14,213/- due to the lack of evidence for certain debts, while the disallowance of Attimari Coolie expenses was restricted to 25% of the total claimed amount, following the precedent set in the previous year. The ITAT found no justifiable reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decisions.