9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 19.02.2016 by passing a consolidated order and present appeal was not disposed off. Hence on 3.3.2016, when this error was noticed by us, we passed a corrigendum order and directed that the name of this appeal be deleted in the cause title of the order dated 19.2.2016 [supra] and this appeal of the Revenue would be decided by passing a separate order. Copies of the said order and corrigendum order have been kept in the file of this appeal for ready reference. 3. The sole ground raised by the Revenue is with regard to the addition of Rs. 2,80,82,006/- made by the AO and deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on account of bad debts. 4. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. 7. On careful consideration of the above and from the assessment order, it is clear that the AO made the disallowance by observing that the assessee did not make any efforts to recover the bad debts hence the same is not allowable. From the vigilant reading of the impugned order, it is vivid that the ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee with the following observations and conclusion: "9.3 It was argued that the appellant had submitted complete details of such bad debts in his submission dated 27.02.2013 before the AO, wherein the appellant had also given reasons as to why the debts had become bad. The appellant has also distinguished the case laws relied upon by the AO in the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f bad debts shown by the appellant. Although there was no such legal requirement under the existing legal provisions, however, my predecessor had again given opportunity to the AO to work upon his apprehension that the debts of such a high magnitude would not have been written off by the appellant company so easily. The fact that the AO has not worked upon again on the suggestion of my predecessor and the legal position is very clear that when a businessman writes off a debt as bad, it must be presumed that it was bad and irrecoverable unless contrary is shown by the department. In view of the factual position being as above, the action of the AO in disallowing the write off of bad debits/ solely on the ground of its being very substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
