2018 (3) TMI 660 - AT - Income Tax

Addition towards provision for doubtful debts - CIT-A deleted the addition - before the completion of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised computation of income wherein suo moto disallowance made towards provision for bad and doubtful debts was withdrawn by the assessee, on the ground that the same amount was already added back by the Ld. AO in the scrutiny assessment proceedings - Held that - We find that the legitimate mistake committed by the assessee was sought to be withdrawn by way of revised computation of income in order to avoid double disallowance which was not considered by the Ld. AO. This has been fairly considered by the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) had rightly granted relief to the assessee in this regard. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in deleting the addition made towards provision for doubtful debts.

Analysis:
The appeal arose from the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolkata, against the order passed by the DCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The sole issue in this appeal was whether the Commissioner was correct in deleting the addition made towards provision for doubtful debts amounting to &8377; 57,31,137. The assessee had initially made a disallowance towards provision for bad and doubtful debts in its return of income, but later withdrew this disallowance in a revised computation of income. The assessee argued that the provision for bad and doubtful debts had already been disallowed in a previous assessment year and was inadvertently disallowed again in the original return of income for the current assessment year. The Commissioner granted relief to the assessee, considering the legitimate mistake made by the assessee and the intention to avoid double disallowance. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the legitimate mistake made by the assessee was rectified through a revised computation of income to prevent double disallowance. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had rightly granted relief to the assessee in this regard. The Tribunal did not find any fault in the Commissioner's order and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner to delete the addition made towards provision for doubtful debts. The Tribunal found that the assessee had rectified a genuine mistake through a revised computation of income and that the relief granted by the Commissioner was appropriate in the circumstances. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle of avoiding double disallowance and ensuring fairness in the assessment process.