2015 (5) TMI 722 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of the claim of bad debts - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that - the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee had written off debts in its books of accounts and it is not the case of the AO that the debts written off were not related to the business of the assessee. On a similar issue the in the case of TRF Ltd. v. CIT 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT wherein held that After 1st April 1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assesse, do not see any valid to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT on this issue - Decided against revenue. Addition of expenses for earning dividend - Held that - AO had included all the investment while working out the average investment for the purposes of calculating the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the ITA rules. He also included those investment on which no dividend income was received by the assessee during the year consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the explanation of the assessee, without pointing out any defect in the amount of disallowance worked out by the assessee (copy of which is placed at page no. 111 of the paper book). In the present case it seems that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) considered the facts of the present case in right prospective. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due to a reasonable opportunity being heard to the assessee. He is also directed to consider the various case laws relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee while deciding the issue afresh. - Decided in favour of assesse for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of the claim of bad debts amounting to Rs. 40,16,401/-.
2. Disallowance of expenses for earning dividend income amounting to Rs. 4,41,02,912/-.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Disallowance of the Claim of Bad Debts Amounting to Rs. 40,16,401/-:

The department's appeal contested the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 40,16,401/- on account of bad debts claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) had observed that some of the bad debts were related to sister concerns and deemed the claim as premature, arguing that the requisite conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the IT Act, 1961, were not satisfied. The AO relied on the cases of Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT and CIT vs. Coats of India Limited to support the disallowance.

The assessee, upon appealing, argued that the bad debts were actually written off in the books and had been accounted for as income in earlier years, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in TRF Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax that post-1st April 1989, it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the debt need not be proven irrecoverable if written off in the accounts, referencing the Supreme Court cases of Vijaya Bank v. CIT and T.R.F. Ltd. v. CIT.

Upon review, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the Supreme Court's stance that post-1st April 1989, it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. The Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal and dismissed it.

2. Disallowance of Expenses for Earning Dividend Income Amounting to Rs. 4,41,02,912/-:

The assessee's appeal challenged the disallowance of Rs. 4,41,02,912/- under Section 14A of the IT Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962. The AO had noted that the assessee received dividend income of Rs. 2,72,25,894/- and did not maintain separate bank accounts for investments and other activities, leading to the disallowance. The AO applied Rule 8D and computed the disallowance, considering the interest on borrowings and administrative expenses.

The assessee argued that investments were made for business purposes and not from borrowed funds, as evidenced by a year-wise investment chart. They contended that only those investments earning income should be considered for disallowance and cited several case laws, including CIT vs. HOLCIM INDIA P. LTD. and Siva Industries & Holding Ltd. vs. ACIT.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, referencing the Delhi Special Bench of the ITAT in Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. ITO and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. M/s. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd., affirming that disallowance under Section 14A could be made even if no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal, however, found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) considered the facts correctly and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to consider the various case laws cited by the assessee and to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal regarding the deletion of the bad debt disallowance and remanded the issue of disallowance of expenses for earning dividend income back to the AO for fresh consideration.