9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 30th September 2010, declaring loss of Rs. 1,54,68,900. During the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 35,50,044, to the Profit & Loss account towards bad debt written-off called upon the assessee to furnish necessary details and justify the claim. Alleging that the assessee failed to furnish any details justifying its claim the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed. Being aggrieved of the disallowance made, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. In the course of hearing of appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee produced supporting evidence to justify the deduction claimed. On the basis of evidence produced by the assessee, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to examine them and submit his report. After verifying the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in respect of impugned assessment year neither the assessee has submitted any supporting evidence to justify the claim no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examine the evidence and submit his report. On a perusal of the remand report dated 14th October 2015 submitted by the Assessing Officer it appears that it is a combined report for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Further, on a perusal of the said remand report, it is evident the Assessing Officer has not made any comment with regard to assessee's claim of bad debt. However, the first appellate authority on independently examining the evidence brought on record and taking note of the fact that the Assessing Officer has not made any adverse comment in the remand report allowed assessee's claim of bad debt in assessment year 2009-10. On a perusal of submissions dated 16th April 2015, a copy of which is at Page-24 of the paper book, it is evident in Para-7.1 of the said submissions, the assessee has not only justified its claim of bad debt but has also furnished supporting evidence like party-wise details of bad debt, amount written-off, etc. When, on the basis of similar evidence the first appellate authority has allowed assessee's claim for the assessment year 2009-10, we fail to understand why it was not allowed for the impugned assessment year. Further, when the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of advance given to employees being written-off was primarily made in the absence of supporting details and evidence. For this very reason, similar disallowance was made in assessment year 2009-10, which has been accepted by the assessee. In the impugned assessment year also, the factual position is no different. Except furnishing the name of some persons with amounts written against their names no other details or supporting evidence have been produced by the assessee to demonstrate advancement of money to the concerned persons. No supporting bills / vouchers have been produced either before the Departmental Authorities or before us. In view of the aforesaid, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Ground no.2, is dismissed. 15. In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged disallowance of Rs. 52,329, towards delayed payment of employee's contribution to P.F. 16. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticing that employee's contribution to provident fund (P.F) amounting to Rs. 52,329, was not paid within the due date as per Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention, learned Authorised Representative submitted, the assessee though has claimed deduction of provisions made towards warranty expenses amounting to Rs. 32,55,695 in the impugned assessment year, however, it has offered it as income in assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, any disallowance in the impugned assessment year would amount to double taxation of the same income. 25. We have heard rival contentions and perused material on record. It is the specific contention of the assessee before us that the disputed amount claimed as deduction in the impugned assessment year has been offered as income in the subsequent assessment year i.e., assessment year 2011-12. If the aforesaid claim of the assessee is correct, then, upholding of disallowance in the impugned assessment year would amount to addition of the same income in two assessment years, which in our view should not be made. Considering the aforesaid factual position, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee's claim of deduction of provisions made for warranty expenses in the impugned assessment year subject to verification of the fact that the amount in question was offered as income in assessment year 2011- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
