9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by CIT (Appeals) with six grounds raised - Disallowance of Rs. 2,50,000 as bad debt by Assessing Officer - Claim for deduction against taxable income by the assessee - Requirement to show engagement in money-lending for deduction under section 36(2)(i)(a) - Arguments regarding money-lending activity and bad debt claim - Applicability of section 155(6) and previous year for bad debt claim Analysis: The appeal was made against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) with six grounds raised, out of which ground Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6 were withdrawn by the appellant. The main issue revolved around the disallowance of Rs. 2,50,000 claimed as a bad debt by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, a Private Limited Company providing consultancy services in Marine Engineering, had advanced this amount to M/s. E.M.S.U. Breweries, which became irrecoverable. The Assessing Officer added back the sum to the income, which was contested by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) required the assessee to establish engagement in "money-lending" as a normal business activity to qualify for the deduction under section 36(2)(i)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT (Appeals) scrutinized the agreement with M/s. EMSU Breweries and the absence of the decree from the High Court. Ultimately, it was ruled that since money-lending was not a regular business activity of the company, the deduction claim for the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was disallowed. The appellant contended that despite not being primarily engaged in money-lending, the loan advanced to M/s. EMSU Breweries constituted a money-lending transaction due to the interest charged. The appellant argued for the deduction based on the unrecovered business advance and referenced section 155(6) along with section 36(2)(iv) to support the claim. The Departmental Representative supported the CIT (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the absence of satisfaction under section 155(6) and the need to establish the loan transaction in the course of business. The Tribunal examined the submissions and material on record, concluding that the assessee's case did not align with the requirement of being engaged in money-lending activities as per section 36(2)(i)(a). The Tribunal highlighted that money-lending involves systematic activities aimed at earning interest income, which did not apply to the isolated transaction in question. Therefore, the claim for deduction was denied, upholding the decision of the CIT (Appeals) in disallowing the deduction for the bad debt claim. This detailed analysis illustrates the progression of arguments and decisions regarding the disallowance of a bad debt claim based on the engagement in money-lending activities as a prerequisite for deduction under the Income-tax Act.
|
