9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs and other relevant documentary evidence to prove that the amounts was incorporated as revenue receipts and offered as income in the earlier financial year. The assessee also submitted copies of the e-mails and other correspondence with the debtors showing that the conscious and sincere efforts made by the assessee company towards recovery of impugned amounts and the assessee also submitted relevant copies of the ledger accounts and other evidence to show that the claimed debts has become bad and the same was properly submitted before the assessing officer during assessment proceedings. On the basis for foregoing discussion, we reach to a conclusion that the claim of the assessee supported by the required documentary proof about the offering the same income in the earlier financial year and efforts of the assessee for recovery as well as the intention of the assessee to treat the amounts of debts as bad debts. Thus, the issues is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. v. CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] and hence we hold that the CIT(A) rightly granted to relief to the assessee. We are unable to see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claim in its profit loss account a sum of ₹ 46,95,289/- and ₹ 3,80,80,437/- under the head Rebate Discounts and Miscellaneous Expenses respectively and details of which were filed during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, elaborating the facts of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that amount claim under the head Rebate Discount is on account of cash discount, quantity discount in respect of sales made during the relevant financial period to various parties and in no way connected with the amount which is gone bad on account of reasons initiated in respect of sales made in the previous year as well as in the current year. The Ld. AR, further pointed out that in order to prove genuineness of the bad debts, the assessee company filed the copies of the EMails exchanged between it and its debtors from which it is abundantly clear that the appellant company did not receive the payments from its debtors due to well founded reasons. The Ld. AR vehemently contended that the assessing officer made contradictory observations while making the addition and the legal position on this issue is very clear that write off of bad debts is allowable in the year in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO has also stated that the appellant company also filed the copies of the emails exchange between it and its debtors alongwith details showing the amount of debt which they are not able to recover from their debtors. They also filed invoices/date-wise with copies of invoices to prove the genuineness of the bad debts also to prove that this amount was offered as income in the earlier financial year. It has been stated that all these details were also filed during the course of assessment proceedings but it seems somehow the A.O. did not take cognizance of the same. It has been argued by the appellant that the A.O. s observation in para 2.3 of her order that as that the assessee is having regular dealing with the parties, its claim of bad debts in the year under review is not qualified. It has been stated that the record produced showed that the amount which has gone bad relates to the different sales made during the previous year(s). Further, it is argued that regular dealing with the parties does not debar the appellant to claim the amount which has gone bad in respect of earlier sales. It has been stated that Section 36(1)(vii), as it stands with effect from 1-4-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the copies of the relevant correspondence with the relevant various parties to prove the genuineness of the bad debts. The Ld. CIT have also note that the assessee filed complete details regarding rebate and discount and miscellaneous expenses which showed that the expenses claim under those heads are totally different and pertaining to the assessment year under consideration in this appeal i.e. 2004-05. These fact has not been controverted by the ld. DR during the arguments before us. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the AO also observe that the assessee company has also filed the copies of the email exchange between it and its debtors alongwith details showing the amount of that which the assessee was not able to recover from the respective debtors and the assessee also filed invoices / date-wise details of the invoices to prove that this amount was offered as income in the earlier financial year relevant to the bad debts showed to be claimed during the AY 2004-05. In this situation in the light of provision of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as it its stands with effect from 01.04.1989 and in the light of dicta laid down by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
