9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of provisions for bad and doubtful debts as a deduction while computing liability to tax u/s 115-J. 2. Justification of the denial of the plea for rectification by the Assessing Officer. 3. Validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under the special provisions of section 115-J. Summary: 1. Allowability of Provisions for Bad and Doubtful Debts: The assessee contended that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts should be allowed as a deduction while computing the liability to tax u/s 115-J. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's adjustments, noting that the provision for doubtful debts, loans, advances, etc., was not an "ascertained liability" and thus called for adjustment as per clause (c) of the Explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 115J. The Tribunal, however, found that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is not for meeting unascertained or contingent liabilities but for assets, and thus no adjustment could be made under clause (c) of the Explanation to section 115J. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made on account of bad and doubtful debts. 2. Denial of the Plea for Rectification: The assessee's application u/s 154 for rectification was denied by the Assessing Officer, who held that the adjustments made were within the scope of section 143(1A). The CIT(A) upheld this denial. The Tribunal, however, found that the adjustments made were not justified and directed the deletion of the addition made on account of bad and doubtful debts, loans, advances, etc. 3. Validity of the Assessment under Section 115-J: The assessee argued that the provisions of Section 115-J were not applicable as they had assessable losses for the current year and brought forward losses to be set off. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's application of Section 115-J, noting that the assessee had itself computed the total income as per the provisions of Section 115-J in the return filed. The Tribunal, following its decision for the assessment year 1989-90, rejected the assessee's claim, holding that the provisions of section 115-J were fully applicable to the assessee-company. Separate Judgement by U.B.S. Bedi, JM: Judge U.B.S. Bedi disagreed with the majority view, holding that the provision for bad and doubtful debts was not an ascertained liability and thus the Assessing Officer was justified in making the adjustment. He upheld the action of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Third Member Decision: The Third Member, M.K. Chaturvedi, agreed with the majority view, noting that there was no increase in the provision for doubtful debts, loans, and advances as compared to the previous year. Thus, the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was not warranted, and the issue was decided in favor of the assessee.
|
