9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 779 - AT - Income TaxDeduction of bad debts written off u/s 36(2)(i) - HELD THAT - As observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT as per the post-amended Sec.36(1)(vii), it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt in fact, had become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. As per the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that now when the assessee holding a conviction that the entire amount receivable from NSEL could not be recovered, had thus written off 25% of the entire receivable amount i.e. ₹ 1,98,70,000/- in its books of accounts, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the lower authorities to have declined the said claim of deduction so raised by the assessee. We find, that the said issue also covered by the view taken by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of a sister concern of the assessee company viz. M/s Remi Securities and Engineering Limited vs. ACIT, Circle 13(3)(1), Mumbai for A.Y 2014-15 2019 (9) TMI 1339 - ITAT MUMBAI - Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations and finding no reason to take a view different from that arrived at by the Tribunal in the case of the sister concern of the assessee company, we herein set aside the order of the CIT(A) and vacate the disallowance of the assesses claim for bad debt - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of bad debt written off amounting to ?1,98,70,000/- 2. General grounds for amending or modifying the order of the CIT(A) Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Bad Debt Written Off Amounting to ?1,98,70,000/- Background: The assessee, engaged in financing, trading, sub-broking of shares and securities, and investment broking, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring a total income at Rs. Nil after claiming a loss of ?2,06,99,797/-. During the assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee claimed bad debts of ?1,98,70,000/- due to a scam involving National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL). The outstanding amount from NSEL was ?8,22,62,078/-, out of which ?7,64,90,724/- remained after partial recovery. The assessee wrote off 25% of this outstanding amount as bad debt. Assessment Officer's (A.O.) View: The A.O. disallowed the bad debt claim, arguing that the matter was under investigation by the Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) and monitored by a committee appointed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The A.O. noted that NSEL had sufficient assets to liquidate and repay the outstanding amounts, and the properties of NSEL and its beneficiaries had been attached. The A.O. concluded that the claim was premature and not allowable. CIT(A)’s View: The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision, stating that the matter was sub judice and recovery was still in progress. The CIT(A) found that the write-off was not backed by sound reasoning and thus disallowed the claim. Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that as per the amended provisions of Sec. 36(1)(vii) effective from 01.04.1989, it is not necessary to establish that the debt has become irrecoverable; it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts. The appellant cited the Supreme Court judgment in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) and a coordinate bench decision in M/s Remi Securities and Engineering Limited vs. ACIT, which supported their claim. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had written off 25% of the outstanding amount from NSEL as bad debt in its books of accounts. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities’ reasoning that the claim was premature due to ongoing investigations and asset realization was not in line with the settled legal position. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT, which clarified that post-amendment, it is enough if the debt is written off in the accounts of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's write-off of ?1,98,70,000/- as bad debt was justified and allowable under Sec. 36(1)(vii). The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and vacated the disallowance of the bad debt claim. 2. General Grounds for Amending or Modifying the Order of the CIT(A) Background: The appellant also raised general grounds for amending or modifying the order of the CIT(A) based on the evidence and facts of the case. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal did not find it necessary to address these general grounds separately as the primary issue concerning the bad debt write-off was resolved in favor of the appellant. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside in favor of the appellant. Final Order: The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 10.01.2020, allowing the appeal of the assessee and vacating the disallowance of the bad debt claim of ?1,98,70,000/-.
|
