9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attracted. - In that context even if amendment which is made retrospective the benefit given by the Tribunal and the appellate Commissioner to the assessee is in no way affected. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 244/2015 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2016 - Jayant Patel And B. V. Nagarathna, JJ. For the Appellant : SRI K V Aravind, Adv For the Respondent : A Shankar, Adv JUDGMENT The revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee has reduced the provision so made from the sundry debtors in the balance sheet and hence the same cannot be considered as provision but is the write off of bad debts without ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on 31.3.2000 of assessee, at its Schedule VIII, copy of which has been placed before us, shows that aggregate amount of sundry debtors was ₹ 107,34,96,981 from which assessee had deducted the provision of ₹ 2,04,24,768. What was reflected by assessee in its balance sheet under the head debtors was only the net amount. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in Vijaya Bank (Supra) as well as that of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in Yokogawa India Ltd., (supra), would come to its aid. In the case of Yokogawa India Ltd., (supra), the issue involved was very similar, though the computation was with reference to section 115JB of the Act. At para 8 of its judgment, it was held as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion makes it very clear that there is a dichotomy between actual write off on the one hand and provision for bad and doubtful debt on the other, A mere debit to the profit and loss account would constitute a bad and doubtful debt, but it would not constitute actual write off and that was the very reason why the explanation stood Inserted. Prior to the Finance Act, 2001 many assesses used to take the benefit of deduction under s. 36(1)(vii) of the 1961 Act by merely debiting the impugned bad debt to the profit and loss account and, therefore, the Parliament stepped in by way of Explanation to say that a mere reduction of profits by debiting the amount to the profit and loss account per se would not constitute actual write off. The apex Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly held by Their Lordships that retrospective benefit to the amendment will not affect an assessee, once debtors were netted off with the provisioning. We are, therefore, of the view that Revenue cannot succeed on this ground. This issue is decided in favour of assessee. The aforesaid paragraphs shows that the issue is already covered by the above referred decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd., [(2012) 204 taxman 305]. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellants did contend that the aforesaid decision of this court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd., supra has been carried before the Apex Court. 4. Be that as it may, when the issue is already covered by the decision of this court, we do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
