9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e three years involved. For all the years grounds, of the Revenue are identical to be decided as follows:- Assessment Year 2003-04 (ITA No.2695/Ahd/2009) 1) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,96,505/- (A.Y.2004-05 ₹ 2,05,980/- & A.Y. 2005-06 ₹ 2,79,355/-) on account of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act. 2. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order passed u/s.1153A r.w.s, 143(3) of the I.T.Act dated 24.12.2008 has held that the bad debts as claimed in the Profit & Loss Account were not allowable u/s.36(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act following the decision of Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT reported at [2007]207 CTR 729 (Guj.). When t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s deducted from sundry debtors. As stated above, the Assessing Officer has not examined whether, in fact, the bad debt or part thereof is written off in the accounts of the assessee. This exercise has not been undertaken by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration of the abovementioned aspect only and that too only to the extent of the write-off." 2.1. Once the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is enough if the bad debt is written-off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, then it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, had become irrecoverable. Therefore, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 3. Ground No.2 (extracted from I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set, from the side of the respondent-assessee an order of ITAT "A" Bench Ahmedabad in the case of Shri Ramesh Kantilal Sheth vs. ITO bearing ITA No.109/Ahd/2006 for Assessment Year 2002-03 dated 05/12/2008 has been filed, wherein almost on identical facts it was held as under:- "4. We have heard both the parties. At the time of hearing it was submitted that this Tribunal, in identical circumstances, has allowed the claim of the assessee in its order dated 25-4-2008 (A.Y. 2000-01). The Tribunal has made the following observations in the aforesaid case: "5. Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that so far as payment of interest is concerned, it is to be paid as per mutu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which could clothe the Assessing Officer to invoke the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals), which is confirmed." 5. The material facts in the present case are similar to these involved in the aforesaid case decided by this Tribunal. In this view of the matter, ground No.1 taken by the assessee is allowed and therefore, ground No.2 taken by the assessee does not require any adjudication by us." 4.1. The issue appears to be covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal specially when the Revenue Department has not furnished any cogent material or comparable instances through which it could be established that the paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
