9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A at Rs. 31,38,994 being 30% of the book profit of Rs. 1,04,63,314. The agricultural income was shown at Rs. 63,35,000. The Assessing Officer accepted this return under section 143(1)(a) vide intimation dated 27-3-2000. The assessee-company filed revised return of income on 23-5-2000. The revised return was necessitated as the assessee noticed some belated payments towards ESI and Professional Tax. Even then the return of income was a negative figure after set off of carry forward losses of earlier years. This return was also processed under section 143(1) and intimation dated 31-8-2000 was sent to the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued a rectification notice under section 154 dated 8-12-2000 to rectify the mistake in computation of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned DR Shri Ajit Korde submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in treating the return filed on 17-1-2001 as a valid revised return in spite of the fact that the assessment had been completed on 31-8-2000 through an intimation under section 143(1) on the basis of the return filed on 23-5-2000. The CIT(A) erred in holding that intimation is not an assessment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing Rs. 54,79,176 as bad debt as claimed by the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee could not prove that the debts had become bad. The CIT(A) further erred in law in holding that to claim the same as a deduction, the debt need not become bad and that it is enough if the debt is written off in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... according to him, it has been filed after the intimation has been issued which amounts to filing of return after assessment. The authorized representative argued that 'intimation' is not an 'assessment' as per case laws of (i ) Pradeepkumar Harsaranlal v. Assessing Officer and (ii) Apogee International Ltd. v. Union of India cited supra. Accordingly, I hold that the Assessing Officer is not justified in ignoring the second revised return. As regards merits for disallowing the bad and doubtful debts, the Assessing Officer has noted his findings that at page 51 of the Annual Report under the head 'sundry debtors' as on 31-3-1999, the names of these two debtors are still appearing in fact. As such in effect they have not been written off. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision in the books of account for these debts. The Assessing Officer has simply mentioned that it is a 'provision'. In fact it is bad and doubtful debt and not a provision at all. He also argued that as per section 36(1)(vii) the assessee has to simply write off the debt in order to claim bad debt. The assessee-company was under the belief that they have to take legal recourse before writing it off. As such the same was not claimed as deduction in the original return. After due consultation with legal experts, the assessee found that they can claim the debt as bad if it is not recoverable after making adequate efforts to recover the debts and when it was found that the debtors have become insolvent, the assessee has the written off the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
