9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 177 - AT - Income TaxBad debts written off disallowed - Appellant-company is engaged in the business of broking services in commodities and investment - Held that - AO has not made any enquiry as what happened in the subsequent years about the debtors. It appears that the AO of the debtors were also not contacted in this regard. Thus when debts were held to be bad in the same year, further enquiries were to be carried out by AO to reach at a logical conclusion about allowability/dis-allowability of that particular debt. Relying on the case laws of TRF Ltd. (2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT) was not proper on the part of the AO though FAA has held that provisions of Section 36(2) were not fulfilled, but he has not elaborated as how there was violation of the said provisions. The requirements of written-off the bad debts as decided in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra) & Shreyas S. Morakhiya 2012 (3) TMI 103 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT clearly expect the AO to take a view based on facts of the particular case. As in the present case the assessee is a broker of commodity exchange and assessment year under consideration was the period when commodity market was in its infancy stage. AO has admitted that income earned by the assessee from these two brokers amounting to Rs. 1.4 Lakhs had been offered for taxation by the assessee-company. After accepting the income of the assessee from the said transaction, he should have accepted the irrecoverability of the loans also. Respectfully following the above decision the appeal decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of bad debts as an expense. 2. Confirmation of the disallowance of bad debts. 3. Compliance with legal principles and natural justice. 4. Assessment based on surmises and conjectures. 5. Interpretation of provisions regarding bad debts. Issue 1: Disallowance of bad debts as an expense The Appellant, a broking services company, filed its income tax return declaring total income. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed bad debts of Rs. 3.87 Lakhs written off by the Appellant in the first year of incurring the debts. The AO required the Appellant to establish that the debts had become worthless and that a bonafide assessment was made regarding the bad debts. The AO added the disallowed amount to the Appellant's total income. Issue 2: Confirmation of the disallowance of bad debts The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the specific conditions of Section 36(2) were not fulfilled by the Appellant. The FAA distinguished the case of Shreyas S. Morakhiya, where debts were written off in the year they arose. The FAA dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant. Issue 3: Compliance with legal principles and natural justice During the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellant argued that the bad debts related to parties who had become bankrupt and expressed their inability to pay. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not make further inquiries or contact the debtors in subsequent years. The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on past case laws was not proper and that further investigation was necessary to determine the allowability of the bad debts. Issue 4: Assessment based on surmises and conjectures The Tribunal criticized the AO for not conducting sufficient inquiries into the subsequent years' status of the debts and debtors. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a logical conclusion based on factual investigation rather than reliance on past judgments. The Tribunal found the AO's assessment lacking in thoroughness and factual basis. Issue 5: Interpretation of provisions regarding bad debts The Tribunal, following the decisions in TRF Ltd. and Shreyas S. Morakhiya cases, allowed the appeal in favor of the Appellant. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO should base decisions on the specific facts of each case and not rely solely on past judgments. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant, as a broker in a volatile market, had fulfilled the requirements for writing off bad debts as per legal precedents, and thus allowed the appeal. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant, overturning the disallowance of bad debts by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of factual inquiries and compliance with legal principles in determining the allowability of bad debts for tax purposes.
|
