9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing of second revised return, it is held that the second revised return cannot be entertained as it is invalid and also disallowed the claim of bad and doubtful debts HELD THAT:- We are in total agreement with the finding of learned CIT(A). An assessee can file revised return as many number of times so long as it is within the limitation period and if the assessee discovers any omission or wrong statement therein . If the Assessing Officer takes cognizance of first revised return filed on 23-5-2000, even if the earlier return was processed under section 143(1)( a ) on 27-3-2000, since the revised return was filed on 17-1-2001, which is within one year from the end of the relevant assessment year, the same is valid and hence learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff 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 income under section 115JA. This was objected to by the assessee on certain grounds. The assessee-company filed another revised return on 17-1-2001 showing nil income after set off of loss and admitting profit for the year at Rs. 1,23,22,898 as against Rs. 1,78,98,416 admitted in the original return and Rs. 1,78,02,074 in the first revised return. In the second revised return filed on 17-1-2001 the assessee claimed bad and doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 54,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 books of account. The CIT(A) further erred on facts in accepting the assessee s plea that the debts were actually written off in the books of account, in spite of the fact that the Assessing Officer established that writing off of the debt was an after thought. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in holding that "Assessing Officer is not justified in disallowing the claim of genuine deduction simply on the ground that he has initiated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 such these debts cannot be allowed and no further evidence is required to be establish that these debts were not written off in the books of account. This was contested by the authorized representative on the ground that they have furnished extracts of minutes of the Board Meeting held on 4-3-1999 to the effect that the following debts to be written off : 1. Brindavan Distilleries : Rs. 43,34,400 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore 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 debts. I find there is considerable force in the argument of the authorized representative. The assessee-company has made all out efforts to recover the debts. When he learnt that the debts have become bad, he wrote it off in the books of account. The authorized representative has produced copy of the Annual Report and showed that the amount has been shown in the sundry debtors li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
