9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough FAA has held that provisions of Section 36(2) were not fulfilled, but he has not elaborated as how there was violation of the said provisions. The requirements of written-off the bad debts as decided in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra) & Shreyas S. Morakhiya [2012 (3) TMI 103 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] clearly expect the AO to take a view based on facts of the particular case. As in the present case the assessee is a broker of commodity exchange and assessment year under consideration was the period when commodity market was in its infancy stage. AO has admitted that income earned by the assessee from these two brokers amounting to Rs. 1.4 Lakhs had been offered for taxation by the assessee-company. After accepting the income of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the case selected for scrutiny. Assessment was finalised by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 21-11-2008 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 18.31 Lakhs. 3. During the assessment proceedings, AO found that assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 3.87 Lakhs on account of bad debts written-off in its P L A/c. He found that the assessee had written-off the debts of the year under consideration. He held that assessee was not eligible for claiming bad debts in respect of the new debts which were not more than two years old. AO issued a Show Cause Notice to the assessee in this regard. After considering the submissions of the assessee, he held that debts were not more than three years old, that such debts could not be said to have beco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case under consideration, that in the case of Shreyas S. Morakhiya (supra) assessee could not recover the payment made on behalf of the clients even after several years, that specific conditions of Section 36(2) were not fulfilled by the assessee-company, that debts were written in the year in which they arose. Upholding the order of the AO, he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Before us Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that bad debts related to two parties who had become bankrupt and had expressed their inability to pay, that debts had actually become bad and were written-off in the Books of Accounts, that AO and FAA had taken different view with regard to the bad debts under consideration. He relied upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of that particular debt. Relying on the case laws which were delivered before the order of the TRF Ltd., (supra) was not proper on the part of the AO though FAA has held that provisions of Section 36(2) were not fulfilled, but he has not elaborated as how there was violation of the said provisions. 8. The requirements of written-off the bad debts as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd., (supra) and by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shreyas S. Morakhiya (supra) clearly expect the AO to take a view based on facts of the particular case. We are aware that the assessee is a broker of commodity exchange and assessment year under consideration was the period when commodity market was in its infancy stage. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
