2014 (4) TMI 555 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion on account of provision of doubtful debts Bad debts written off without verifying the actual value Held that - CIT(A) rightly accepted the assessee s contention that the amount has actually been written off in the books of account - there was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) - Before the AO, the assessee clearly mentioned that the amount is actually written off and, by mistake, the same was written as provision for bad debts - The AO rejected the assessee s claim simply stating that the ground is not acceptable, as at the time of original assessment proceedings, the assessee did not disclose this fact before the Assessing Officer - in the original assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee was accepted, either no explanation was sought at the time of original assessment proceedings - the AO was satisfied with the assessee s explanation thus, there was no justification to interfere with the order of CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.11,53,897 on account of provision of doubtful debts.
2. Whether the sum of Rs.11,53,897 represented 'bad debt written off' without verifying the actual write-off in the books of accounts.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the deletion of an addition of Rs.11,53,897 made on account of provision of doubtful debts for the AY 2007-08. The original assessment was completed, and during reassessment, it was found that the amount was actually written off in the books of account but mistakenly recorded as provision for doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation, alleging it was done to claim excess deduction and avoid taxes.

2. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation and deleted the addition. The Revenue challenged this decision, contending that the assessee did not disclose the actual write-off during the original assessment. However, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the claim was accepted during the original assessment, indicating either no query was raised or the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation provided. As a result, the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

3. The ITAT's decision was based on the fact that the assessee had clarified that the amount in question was genuinely written off and not a provision for doubtful debts. The failure to raise this issue during the original assessment did not warrant disallowance, as the original assessment had accepted the claim. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the importance of consistency in treatment of claims and assessments.

4. The judgment highlights the significance of proper documentation and consistency in tax assessments. It underscores the need for Assessing Officers to thoroughly review explanations provided by taxpayers and maintain consistency in accepting claims across assessment periods. In this case, the ITAT's decision favored the assessee due to the acceptance of the claim in the original assessment, emphasizing the importance of fair and consistent tax treatment.