2013 (6) TMI 621 - AT - Income Tax

Bad debts written off disallowed - Held that - As relying on judgment of C.I.T. vs. New Delhi Hotels Ltd. 2012 (3) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT a sum of advance of Rs. 10 lacs which was paid by Shri Jagdish Nain was on behalf of the assessee and the payment was related and incidental to the assessee s business. The loss of the amount paid and the consequential reimbursement to Sh. Jagdish Nain was also incidental to the business of the assessee. Thus set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of amount written off by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in real estate development, wrote off Rs. 10,00,000 paid to farmers by a broker for land purchase. Assessing Officer deemed the claim as not genuine due to lack of proof of payment inclusion in income. Ld. Commissioner upheld this decision, stating the payment was not for business expediency. However, the appellant argued the payment was for a land acquisition deal through the broker, reimbursing the broker after the deal fell through. The appellant provided evidence of the transaction, including receipts and bank statements. The Tribunal found the payment was related to the appellant's business, allowing it as a business expenditure under section 37(1) of the IT Act. Citing a High Court decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside lower authorities' decisions and allowing the appeal.

This judgment revolves around the disallowance of an amount written off by the Assessing Officer. The key issue was whether the payment made by the appellant to reimburse the broker was a genuine business expenditure. The Assessing Officer and Ld. Commissioner doubted the genuineness of the claim due to lack of proof of inclusion in income and business expediency. However, the appellant argued that the payment was directly related to a failed land acquisition deal, providing evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented and concluded that the payment was indeed a business expenditure, allowing it under section 37(1) of the IT Act.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's submission of evidence supporting the business nature of the payment. The Tribunal accepted that the payment was made in the course of the appellant's real estate business activities, specifically related to a land acquisition deal through a broker. By citing a relevant High Court decision, the Tribunal established that the payment was incidental to the appellant's business and should be treated as a business expenditure. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authorities' disallowance of the amount written off and ruling in favor of the appellant.