2016 (4) TMI 756 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - whether the ld. CIT is correct to hold that the bad debt written off should be taken as business income within the meaning of section 41(1) and section 28(iv) of the Act? - whether the bad debt written off representing remission in the principal amount is a capital receipt or not? - Held that - The loan was taken for business purpose and not for the purpose of purchase of any capital asset. Therefore, the written off of balance principal and interest amount of loan in the accounts of Dr. MVS Murthy should be treated as income in the hands of the assessee within the meaning of section 28(iv) of the Act, since the loan was taken by the assessee for business purpose during the course of regular business operation. Further, the cessation of liability to repay the loan taken was not for the purpose of purchase of capital asset and therefore, the liability to repay the loan was taxable under section 41(1) in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax - IV, Chennai, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue raised was the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 and the contention that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

2. The case involved the treatment of a loan amount written off by the assessee as a bad debt in his accounts but shown as a liability in the assessment year 2007-08. The Commissioner found this treatment erroneous, considering it should have been taken as business income for that year. The assessee argued that the loan was for a film production business purpose and relied on a judicial pronouncement to support the treatment of the amount as a non-taxable remission.

3. The Commissioner, after detailed consideration, concluded that the loan amount written off should be treated as business income in the assessee's hands. The purpose of the loan was for the business of film production, and the loan was not for the purchase of a capital asset. Therefore, the Commissioner set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment considering the loan amount as business income.

4. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the loan was for a business purpose and not for acquiring a capital asset. Drawing a distinction from a previous case, the Tribunal agreed that the loan written off should be treated as income under section 28(iv) of the Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's order and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessment order and directed the reassessment of the loan amount as business income for the assessment year 2007-08. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, affirming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.