9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment made and directing the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment de novo. Such action of the CIT. Kol.-II was wholly bad, illegal, unjustified and uncalled for. (2) For that in view of the facts and circumstances the order passed by the Ld. CIT. Kol.-II u/s. 263 was bad, illegal, unjustified and liable to be quashed/cancelled. (3) For that in view of the facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT. Kol.-II was wholly unjustified in setting aside the assessment u/s. 263 and such action of the CIT-II was wholly bad, illegal and unjustified. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Ld. CIT examined the assessment records of the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 and noted that an amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- was debited towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 52,25,491/- had been transferred to liability of balance sheet under the head "current liability and provisions". The assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166(SC) for the methodology adopted by him. Thus, it was pointed out that the impugned amount had been actually written off in the profit and loss account and therefore, it was an allowable deduction in view of the amendment of Income Tax Act from 01.04.1989. Therefore, the provisions of Section 263 are not attracted. However, Ld. CIT pointed out that the details furnished by the assessee in Annexure "A" of the letter dated 06.10.2010 does not give true picture as to when and under what circumstances the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000.00 3. M/s. S.K. Agencies, Bangalore 2000-01 1,25,471.10 4. M/s. Ajit Auto Agencies 2003-04 2003-04 1,00,019.45 Total : 52,25,490.55 Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, with reference to facts noted above, submitted that since Section 154 proceedings were initiated and after considering assessee's submissions, no order was passed, it is evident that there were two views possible and out of which one possible view was taken by the Assessing Officer and therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In support of his contention, assessee has relied on the decision of I.T.A.T., Kolkata in the case of M/s. J. L. Morison (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Vijaya Bank's case (supra) and, therefore, could not be disputed. 6.1 The other aspects pointed out by Ld. CIT regarding circumstances under which the assessee wrote off the amount could not be gone into because after 01.04.89, the only requirement is of writing off the amount. Once actual write off of the amount is there, then the deduction on bad debt is to be allowed. Since from the records, it is evident that assessee had actually written off this amount, which was allowed by Assessing Officer, it could not be said that the assessment order was erroneous. Hence, Ld. CIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. We, accordingly, cancel the order of Ld. CIT. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
