9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) The orders of the authorities below is so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition of ₹ 30,00,000/- in respect of the bad debts written off in the books of accounts under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant s case. 3) The learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition of ₹ 54,750/- in respect of the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant s case. 4) The learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition of ₹ 9,874/- being the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature of amount advanced. He, therefore, held that the debts or loans are not genuine and also that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions laid down u/s 36(2) of the Income-tax Act for it to be allowed as bad debts u/s 36(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. He, therefore, brought the amount to tax as income of the assessee. 4. Further, he also observed that the assessee had paid interest to two parties totaling to an amount of ₹ 54,750/- without deducting tax at source. The assessee s explanation as to why the TDS was not made u/s 194A of the Income-tax Act was called for. The assessee submitted that the assessee was ignorant about TDS provisions. However, the AO observed that the assessee has made payments to some other part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h ₹ 30 lakhs was irrecoverable which has been written off in the books of account. He submitted that the stand of the AO that each and every account has to be probed is not acceptable, in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 397 (SC) wherein it has been held that after the amendment to sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, it was no longer required that the debt has to be proved to be a bad debt before being written off and it was sufficient if the debt has been written off in the books of accounts. The learned DR however, supported the orders of the AO and submitted that the assessee has not filed any details before the AO or the CIT(A) and has also not fulfilled the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en this contention before the CIT(A) also and the CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has declared undisclosed income of ₹ 1.13 crores as attributable to the transactions which are outside his books and the assessee has not taken this amount into consideration while getting his books audited and, therefore, explanation is not applicable to the case of the assessee particularly as in earlier assessment year also the turnover was exceeding the minimum limit of ₹ 40 lakhs as is obvious from the transaction of debtors claimed by the assessee. We are, however unable to agree with this finding of the CIT(A). The additional income of ₹ 1.13 crores declared by the assessee relates to the previous year relevant to the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out by the CIT(A), only a payment to Life Insurance Corporation of India is exempt and not the payment to General Insurance Company. In view of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and this ground of appeal is rejected. 15. As regards ground No.5, the learned DR raised objection that assessee has not raised this ground before the CIT(A) on this issue and, therefore, it cannot be entertained at this stage. The learned counsel for the assessee has also agreed that the assessee has not raised this ground before the CIT(A). In view of the same, ground No.5 is rejected as not maintainable. 16. As regards the additional grounds raised by the assessee relating to charging of interest u/s 234B and 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
