9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome on 31- 10-2003 showing total income of Rs.1,12,130/-.The case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O. observed that the assessee had claimed Rs.22,25,000/- being the amount of bad debts written off during the year. The assessee submitted that the amounts of Rs.22,25,000/- consisted of loan given to Mr. Manoj Jani of Rs.15,75,000/- and Rs.6,50,000/- to Mr. B. Muthuswamy. The amounts of aforesaid loans were given during the ordinary course of business. The assessee stated that the loans were given in 2001. The assessee was not able to recover and therefore it was written off as bad debts. The A.O. did not agree with the contentions of the assessee. He was of the view that the transactions of loan given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ans and advances. The appellant has submitted that the appellant is a non-banking financial company (NBFC) and it is in the business of giving loans and advances, in addition to its other business of trading in shares. Therefore, the loan given to these persons in earlier years are part of its business and if the loans given are not realized and written off, it is allowable as bad debt u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Further, it was submitted that the loan given to Shri Manoj Jain was inadvertently grouped under the head 'advances' in place of loan in A.Y. 2002-03, but the fact remains that the loans given in earlier years have remained outstanding till A.Y. 2002-03 and when the same were not realized, it was written off in A.Y. 2003-04. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 36(2)(i) of the Act. We find that these loans were shown by the assessee under the head 'Loans and Advances' with respect to Mr. V. Muthuswamy. However, the loan in respect of Mr. Manoj Jain does not found any mention in the list of 'Loans and Advances' vide Annexure-10 containing details of loans and advances furnished during the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2002-03. We further find that the assessee is in the business of trading in shares, leasing, finance and investment, but the transaction of giving amount to Mr. V. Muthuswamy and Mr. Manoj Jain do not fall in the category of business transaction and it cannot be said to be transaction in the normal course of business. Accordingly, we are of the view that it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee that mistake of fact has emerged in our order dated 24-2-2010 as the observation of the Bench, as mentioned above, is against the material available on record and is not coming out of the order of either from the A.O. or Ld. CIT (A). Since a mistake apparent from, the record has crept in, in our order, the same is hereby recalled. Registry is directed to refix the case." 6. Before us the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is engaged in the trading in shares, leasing and financing. He pointed out to the fact that the A.O. vide paragraph 6.5 of the assessee order has given a finding that the transaction is in the nature of business advances and is in the nature of loan. He further submitted that CIT (A) in its order in par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
