9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee explained that discrepancy is on account of transactions in the earlier years - Held that:- It is clear that discrepancy is on account of transactions in the earlier years and assessee has already offered income in AY 2000-01 on reconciliation of discrepancy and therefore making addition this year would amount to double taxation. therefore addition stands deleted Bad debts - dis-allowance on ground of failure of assessee to disclose nature, date of debt and the year in which the income had been offered - Held that:- Though assessee submitted that bad debt claim was on account of subscription fee receivable from cable operators but it was never shown as to the year in which the corresponding income had been offered. We therefore upheld dis-allowance. However, bad debts in case of advance to employees has to be allowed as business loss. Addition made to fixed assets - dis-allowance of expenditure and consequent depreciation on ground of absence of evidences of addition - Held that:- Since details of addition of fixed assets had been given and only bills could not be produced as the same were not traceable. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the said ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be admitted as additional evidence. The AO however opposed the admission of additional evidence on the ground that the assessee had been given several opportunities during the assessment proceedings. CIT(A) agreed with the AO that there was no case for admitting additional evidence and accordingly disallowed the claim, aggrieved by which, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2.3 Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before CIT(A) that the assessee made efforts to obtain confirmations which were received only after passing of the assessment order. It was also submitted that CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting additional evidence copy of which have been placed at page 8-16 of the paper book. It was also submitted that the assessee had provided complete details of the payments which had been made by cheque. The assessee had been receiving signal from some T.V. channels in the earlier year and subsequent year in which no disallowance was made. It was accordingly urged that the disallowance made should be deleted. The ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below and placed reliance in the finding given in the respective orders. 2.4 We have per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lained that the discrepancy was coming from the earlier years and there was no discrepancy in the transaction of the current year. The AO however observed that no amount was payable to the assessee as per balance sheet of the immediate preceding year. He, therefore added the difference of Rs.3,63,655/- as income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income tax Act. In appeal, assessee reiterated the earlier submission that difference was because of certain discrepancies in the earlier year. It was also submitted that accounts of the party were reconciled in assessment year 2000-01 and amount was written back as income for that year, details of which had been given before CIT(A). It was accordingly urged that the addition should be deleted. CIT(A) however did not accept the contentions raised and observed that credit of Rs.3,63,655/- remained un-explained and was therefore nongenuine. CIT(A) accordingly confirmed the addition made by AO aggrieved by which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and argued that credit was in respect of royalty payable in the earlier years which could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the break-up of the amount has been given in annexure-C to the statement of facts and comprises of 3-categories. The sum of Rs.1,28,534/- and Rs.1,09,900/- was on account of subscriptions receivable from cable operators, and a sum of Rs.68,000/- related to advertisement amount relating to the years 1997-98 -1998-99 which had been written off and the 3rd category was advances to employees amounting to Rs.56,137/- which had been written off as the employees had left the company. It was argued that the claim was allowable and therefore, the authorities were not justified in disallowing the claim. The ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 4.2 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding allowability of claim of bade debts amounting to Rs.3,62,571/-. The claim of bad debt can be allowed only if it is established that the corresponding income had been declared by the assessee in the earlier year. The ld. AR has submitted that bad debt claim was on account of subscription fee receivable from cable operators and on account of advances to employees but neither before lower authorities nor before us, it has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
