9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised the following ground: The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as CIT[A] ] erred in confirming a sum of Rs.10,85,000/- being Bad Debts written off in the Profit Loss Account by your appellant. 2. After hearing both the parties, we find that during the assessment proceedings, 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 or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny such claim that the debts has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debts or part thereof is written off or of earlier year. The appellant has also not claimed that it is doing the business of banking of money lending. Moreover no interest 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly. Admittedly, the bad debt was purchased from a third party and had not arisen during the course of business from the ordinary trading transactions of the assessee. Therefore, the conditions prescribed u/s.36(2) for claim of bad debt are not fulfilled. Hence, the claim for bad debt has been rightly rejected 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
