2021 (11) TMI 311 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance on account of irrecoverable debts/advances written off during the year, on the ground that irrecoverability of the debts has not been proved - DR submitted that above company has been referred to the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee - HELD THAT - On careful consideration it is found that the above company has been referred for initiation of corporate insolvency process in terms of Section 14 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi has referred this company for insolvency proceedings. The present appeals are found to be filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma in the capacity of Executive Vice Chairman of the appellant's company. The moment IRP is appointed, the board of the company is super-ceded. Therefore, these three appeals filed by the Executive Vice Chairman are not maintainable. In view of this, we dismiss all the appeals filed by the assessee company with a liberty that as soon as the committee of creditors is being decided to pursue these matters then the IRP should file these appeals. If it is so decided, then we give liberty to the IRP either to make an application for recall of this common order by filing corrected Form No. 36 or to file the fresh appeals with the condonation of delay request. Accordingly, all the three appeals filed are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of bad debts written off
2. Disallowance of prior period expenses
3. Disallowance of depreciation on certain assets
4. Disallowance of debenture redemption premium
5. Disallowance of expenditure on sale of shares in computing capital gain
6. Addition of short-term capital gain on alleged transfer of land as part of slump sale of undertaking

1. Disallowance of Bad Debts Written Off:
The assessee challenged the disallowance of bad debts written off by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds of irrecoverability not being proved. The appellant argued that the disallowance was contrary to facts and law, and should have been allowed as a business loss/expense under the Income Tax Act. The Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes was also cited in support. The Tribunal noted the contentions but dismissed the appeal due to lack of proof of irrecoverability.

2. Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses:
The appellant contested the disallowance of prior period expenses, arguing that the expenses were allowable in the current year as per the mercantile system of accounting. The appellant claimed that Section 35D was not applicable in this case. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance by the Commissioner, stating that the liability to pay the expenses crystallized in the preceding year.

3. Disallowance of Depreciation on Certain Assets:
The issue of depreciation on certain assets was raised by the appellant, challenging the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to not decide on the depreciation allowable. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order was against the law and facts of the case, and directed a reconsideration of the issue.

4. Disallowance of Debenture Redemption Premium:
The appellant disputed the disallowance of debenture redemption premium, arguing that it was wrongly treated as capital expenditure on the issue of preferential share capital. The Tribunal noted the contentions regarding the nature of the debentures and the premium claimed, but due to procedural issues related to insolvency proceedings, the appeals were dismissed.

5. Disallowance of Expenditure on Sale of Shares in Computing Capital Gain:
The appellant challenged the disallowance of expenditure incurred for the sale of shares in computing capital gain. The Tribunal considered the facts related to the sale of shares and the allocation of expenses, but due to insolvency proceedings affecting the maintainability of the appeals, they were dismissed.

6. Addition of Short-Term Capital Gain on Alleged Transfer of Land:
Regarding the addition of short-term capital gain on the transfer of land as part of a slump sale, the appellant argued against the application of Section 50C and the estimation of fair market value by the Commissioner. The Tribunal found the addition arbitrary and unsustainable, directing a reevaluation of the matter.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee company due to procedural issues arising from insolvency proceedings, with the possibility of reconsideration by the Insolvency Resolution Professional in the future.