9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the total bad debts claim - Decided against revenue - I.T.A.No.395&396/Vizag/2012 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2016 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Smt. D. Komali Krishna,DR Respondent by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member: These are two appeals filed by the revenue are directed against the separate but, identical orders of CIT(A), Visakhapatnam dated 31.7.2012 for the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed off, by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Public Limited Company, which is engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar and running bottling units of cold drinks and beverages. The assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 admitting nil total income under the normal provisions and total income of ₹ 2,29,92,979/- under the MAT provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act). The case has been selected for scr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, it need not to prove that the debts are really become bad in the financial year. These debts are brought forward from the previous financial years and it has put up lot of efforts to recover the money from the debtors, but could not recover the same, therefore, come to the conclusion that these debtors are not recoverable and hence, same has been written off as irrecoverable. Therefore, the same should be allowed while computing the income from business. The A.O. after considering the submissions of the assessee held that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, to claim the bad debt, the assessee to prove beyond doubt that these debts are arised in the normal course of business of the assessee and the income from these debts has been offered to tax for the previous financial period. The assessee failed to offer any explanation with regard to the claim of bad debts. Therefore, the claim made by the assessee cannot be acceptable. With these observations, disallowed the bad debt claim made by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the A.O., the CIT(A) deleted a sum of ₹ 6,87,061/- out of the total disallowance of ₹ 30,05,782/- and confirmed balance amount of ₹ 23,18,721/-. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in allowing 50% depreciation on plastic crates claimed by the assessee. The D.R. further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that the assessee has made a revised claim of depreciation by way of filing a computation before the assessing officer. The D.R. further submitted that as per the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2001) 284 ITR 323, the assessee should have made such revised claim of depreciation by filing a revised return, however, the assessee has failed to file revised return to make any claim of depreciation. Therefore, the CIT(A) was completely erred in accepting the claim of depreciation though the assessee has not made any proper claim by filing the revised return. As regards the bad debts, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the facts narrated by the A.O. in his remand report and sustained the additions made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refill , whereas the first appellate authority observed that the plastic crates are used as refills to carry the empty bottles from and to the assessee s factory. Learned DR was not able to contradict the findings of the CIT(A). We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. 10. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the D.R. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 and submitted that there is no provision under the I.T. Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the power of assessing authority to entertain a claim otherwise by a return is invalid. We have gone through the case law relied upon by the Ld. D.R., in the light of the facts of the present case. The Hon ble Supreme Court, in the said case held that the assessing authority has no power to entertain any fresh claim towards deduction otherwise than by way of revised return. However, the court made it clear that such claim did not impeach on the powers of appellate authorities. The CIT(A) being an appellate authority can entertain new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
