2025 (1) TMI 1055 - AT - Income Tax

Bad debt written off - basis for this claim was due to the stoppage of the trading in National Spot Exchange Limited ( NSEL ) - AO came to the conclusion that the assessee had not produced any documents which shows that the assessee has made any effort for recovery of said bad debts - HELD THAT - It is an undisputed fact that the assessee entered into the contract prior to the action of EOW and suspension of NSEL. When the contract was finally settled the assessee could not recover the amount due to it and hence was left with no choice but to write off the same. The assessee has actually written off the debt as is evident from the copy of the ledger account placed in the paper book. In our considered opinion the assessee satisfies the claim in the light of the decision of TRF Ltd 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT which has been accepted by the Board vide Circular No.12/2016. No reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). All the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the assessee's claim of bad debt write-off amounting to Rs. 13 crore is allowable under the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the circumstances of trading suspension and alleged illegality of transactions on the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL).
Whether the assessee complied with the relevant accounting standards and legal requirements to justify the write-off of bad debts.
Whether the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to allow the bad debt claim is correct and should be upheld.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Allowability of Bad Debt Write-Off

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which govern the conditions under which bad debts can be written off. The Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT established that post-1989, it is not necessary for an assessee to prove that a debt is irrecoverable; it suffices if it is written off in the books.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court precedent and the CBDT Circular No. 12/2016, which clarified that proving irrecoverability is not required if the debt is written off in the books. The Tribunal found that the assessee had written off the debt in accordance with these provisions.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's ledger account showed the debt was written off. The Tribunal noted the NSEL circular suspending trading and the subsequent inability of the assessee to recover the debt.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's ruling and the CBDT circular to determine that the debt write-off was compliant with legal requirements.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the transactions were illegal and the write-off should not be allowed. However, the Tribunal focused on the legal requirement of writing off the debt in the books, which was fulfilled by the assessee.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the bad debt write-off, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

Issue 2: Compliance with Accounting Standards

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue involves compliance with Accounting Standard AS-5, which pertains to net profit or loss for the period, prior period items, and changes in accounting policies.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not find substantial evidence from the Revenue to prove non-compliance with AS-5. The focus remained on the write-off as per the Income Tax Act.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the lack of specific evidence from the Revenue regarding non-compliance with accounting standards.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the primary concern was the write-off under the Income Tax Act, which was satisfied.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument regarding AS-5 was not substantiated with evidence, and thus, did not affect the Tribunal's decision.
Conclusions: The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings based on the alleged non-compliance with AS-5.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "After 1.4.1989, for allowing deduction for the amount of any bad debt or part thereof under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable; it is enough if bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of assessee."
Core Principles Established: The principle that a bad debt write-off does not require proof of irrecoverability if it is documented in the books of accounts, as per the Supreme Court's decision and CBDT circular.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the bad debt write-off. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments regarding the legality of transactions or compliance with accounting standards.

← Previous Next →