9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of bad debts. 2. Compliance with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Business purpose of loans. 4. Recovery efforts by the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Bad Debts: The assessee, a registered firm, claimed a deduction of Rs. 7,60,845 as bad debts for the assessment year 1973-74. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed this claim, stating that the assessee could not provide evidence that the loans were irrecoverable and had not taken any legal steps to recover the amount. The ITO also noted that the debtor company, M/s. Nutun Assamiya (P) Ltd., was still operational, making the write-off premature and unwarranted. 2. Compliance with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act: The Tribunal's earlier orders directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) to reconsider the claim in light of Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act. This section requires that the debt must have been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee in a previous year or represent money lent in the ordinary course of business. The Tribunal found that the assessee had met these conditions, as the debt had been taken into account in earlier years and the assessee was engaged in money lending as a regular business activity. 3. Business Purpose of Loans: The AAC observed that the loans given to M/s. Nutun Assamiya (P) Ltd. were not for business purposes but were advances to a sister concern. The AAC also noted that the assessee was not in the business of money lending. However, the Tribunal had previously accepted that the assessee was engaged in money lending as a regular business activity, thus fulfilling the requirements of Section 36(2). 4. Recovery Efforts by the Assessee: The AAC noted that the assessee had not made sufficient efforts to recover the loan, such as selling or renting the debtor's assets or transferring shares held by the debtor. The AAC also pointed out that some amount had been recovered, indicating that the entire debt had not become bad. However, the Tribunal highlighted that the lower authorities' findings did not rebut the proposition that the debt had become bad. The Tribunal cited the case of Jethabhai Hirji and Jethabhai Ramdas vs. CIT, which stated that the determination of a bad debt depends on the circumstances and materials on record, and the Department cannot insist on demonstrative proof. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the debt had become bad and merited deduction under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal directed the ITO to allow the deduction and determine the point of time when the debt became bad. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the case was restored to the ITO for further action in accordance with the law.
|
