9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings, AO noticed that the assessee had made a claim of Rs.10,85,000/- on account of bad debts written off. On enquiry, it was further found that assessee has purchased the debt amount from Rose Mercantile Co. Ltd. and the amount was due from Qualitron Components Ltd. The AO observed that this was not a debt which was originally accounted for by computing the income of previous year and it was not even money lent in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, the claim was not allowable. After discussing various case laws, he disallowed the claim. 3. Before the CIT[A] it was mainly submitted that after the amendment in law w.e.f. 1-4-1989, it was no more a requirement that for claiming a debt, the same could not really become ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t either accrued or received has been debited in P &L account by the appellant in respect of amount of debts of Rs.10,85,000/-. Therefore the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of bad debts amounting to Rs.10,85,000/- u/s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the I.T. Act. The action of the Assessing Officer is justified and confirmed. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts and not applicable in the case of the appellant. 3. As regards alternative claim of the assessee regarding allowing write off of Rs.10,85,000/- as business loss u/s.37(1) is concerned, the claim of appellant is also not acceptable. Firstly, the amount of Rs.10,85,000/- is not an expenditure which has been incurred for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected by the ld. CIT[A]. We also find force in the submission of the ld. DR that since no ground has been taken regarding the claim of business loss, though the ld. CIT[A] has dealt with that issue and, therefore, that issue cannot be entertained now in the absence of a specific ground. 7. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee had also submitted that, in any case, she is entitled to support the order of the CIT[A] on any ground which has been decided against the assessee under Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. However, when we pointed out to her that Rule 27 is applicable to the respondent, but since it was the appeal of the assessee therefore she could not invoke Rule 27 and rather the assessee ought to have taken a specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
