9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 834 - AT - Income TaxBad debts to be written off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act Conditions u/s 36(2) - assessee claimed bad debts for not receipt of brokerage charges but non receipt of margin money also - claim of bad debts towards debts arisen during the current year or earlier year Held that - Debt under reference satisfies the condition of section 36(2)(i) in-as-much as the broker only acts as a mediator/intermediary and the property in the contract belongs to the corresponding principals - Revenue s stand that only the claim to the extent of Rs.27.87 lacs could be claimed thus i.e. for the current year on the ground that the debt written off pertains to the current year to that extent is without merit. What is relevant is not the year to which the debt/s written off pertains but the year in which the loss in its respect which is signified by its write off in its accounts as irrecoverable relates to Decided in favor of Assessee.
Issues:
Assessment of business loss claimed by a stockbroker for write off of debts owed by clients. Analysis: The appeal pertains to the assessment of business loss claimed by a stockbroker for the write off of debts owed by clients. In the original proceedings, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the claim for business loss as he considered the debts written off by the assessee not eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. noted that the assessee did not follow the prescribed procedures and regulations of the stock exchanges, leading to the disallowance of the claimed loss. The first appellate authority partially allowed the claim, but the matter was remanded back to the A.O. by the tribunal for further verification. During the set-aside proceedings, the assessee failed to respond to notices, and the A.O. decided the matter based on the material on record. The entire amount of the claimed loss was disallowed, and the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who confirmed the disallowance. The CIT(A) held that the bad debts written off were not allowable deductions as they were not in the nature of debts given in the normal course of business. The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal carefully considered the case and found in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. had to consider all relevant facts while making a judgment under section 144. The Tribunal emphasized that the write off of bad debts in the accounts was sufficient for claiming a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) unless proven otherwise. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Revenue did not provide any evidence to challenge the genuineness of the write off. The Tribunal further explained the eligibility of the entire amount receivable from clients as a debt under section 36(1)(vii) and clarified the treatment of margin money and shares held in the transactions. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's contention that only the loss pertaining to the current year could be claimed, emphasizing that the year of the loss write off is crucial, not the year to which the debt pertains. The Tribunal found the Revenue's objections unsubstantiated and criticized the CIT(A) for not considering the material on record and the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and setting aside the disallowance of the claimed business loss.
|
