2013 (2) TMI 551 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of Bed Debts in the revised return - The assessee s claim of bad debts written off was rejected since the assessee did not produce necessary evidence to prove the fact that the bad debts were actually written off in its books of account - held that - no material was produced by the assessee which could prove that the debts were actually written off in the books of account. - the assessee has failed to even satisfy the first precondition envisaged in S.36(1)(vii) of writing off of the debt in its books of account. - None of the ledger account copies submitted in the paper-book show nil balance, which should have been the case, in the event of the actual write off of the debt. - Claim disallowed - Decided against the assessee. Addition on account of increase in unsecured creditors - held that - Ongoing through the confirmation letters, it is seen that in many of the cases, the address of the creditors alongwith their Permanent Account Number is mentioned therein. Thus, in these cases, since the persons are income-tax assessees, necessary enquiry could have been conducted for finding out the credit-worthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the claim made by the assessee with regard to the unsecured loans shown against these persons. - no enquiry has been made to find out as to whether the creditors whose details were furnished actually had advanced the monies to the assessee - matter remanded back to AO.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of bad debts.
2. Addition due to increase in unsecured creditors.
3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.
4. Disallowance of excess depreciation claimed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Bad Debts:
The assessee's claim of bad debts amounting to Rs.7,24,82,000 was disallowed by the assessing officer due to lack of evidence showing the debts were written off in the books of account. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the bad debts were not reflected in the balance sheet and were claimed only in the revised computation of income. The CIT(A) referenced the Apex Court decision in TRF Limited Vs. CIT, which clarified that post-1.4.1989, it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off in the accounts. However, since the assessee failed to provide proof of such write-off, the disallowance was confirmed. The Tribunal also upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for the debt to be written off in the books as per S.36(1)(vii) and S.36(2) of the Act.

2. Addition Due to Increase in Unsecured Creditors:
The assessing officer added Rs.2,18,80,000 to the income of the assessee under S.68 of the Act, citing the assessee's failure to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, noting the assessee's non-compliance and remissness in providing necessary details during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had provided confirmation letters with details such as addresses and PAN numbers. It directed the assessing officer to re-examine the matter, conduct proper enquiries, and verify the genuineness of each unsecured loan independently.

3. Disallowance Under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-deduction of TDS:
The assessing officer disallowed Rs.11,18,376 under S.40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on audit fees, rent, and advertisement expenses. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. However, the Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in Merylin Shipping and Transports V/s. ACIT, which held that S.40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts payable as at the end of the previous year. Since the payments were made during the year, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the assessing officer to verify and restrict the disallowance to amounts payable on the balance sheet date.

4. Disallowance of Excess Depreciation Claimed:
The assessing officer disallowed Rs.1,46,57,679 claimed as depreciation on plant and machinery, allowing only 15% instead of the claimed 80%. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance without detailed examination. The Tribunal noted the cryptic nature of the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication, directing a detailed verification of the facts and figures and a reasoned order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of bad debts and set aside the additions related to unsecured creditors and disallowance under S.40(a)(ia), remitting these issues for further verification. The disallowance of excess depreciation was also remitted for fresh adjudication. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

← Previous Next →