9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer has already satisfied himself and passed an order which clearly indicates that the Assessing Officer has verified and investigated the matter in detail. Therefore, even in this issue, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked - Decided in favour of assessee. - SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM And SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Assessee by : Shri C. Naresh Revenue by : Shri Rahul Raman, CIT DR ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) This appeal in ITA No.3473/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2015-16 preferred by the order against the revision order of the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai u/s.263 of the Act dated 15/03/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case with regard to provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 3. We have heard rival submissions. We find that the ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the ld. Pr.CIT u/s.263 of the Act. We find that assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 30/11/2015 declaring total income of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 36(1)(viia) of the Act, allowed the deduction to the assessee and completed the assessment. 3.2. We find that the ld. PCIT wanted to impose another view on the same subject matter in the revision proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. Infact, the same reply which was already filed before the ld. Assessing Officer was again filed before the ld. PCIT. We find that ld. PCIT held in his order passed u/s.263 as under:- 5.3 In view of the above discussion, the assessee's claim of debit balance in PBDD account and the computation given is not correct and the same is reworked as under. Opening balance for A.Y. 2013-14 is the amount of deduction allowed to bank u/s 36(1)(viia) in A.Y. 2012-13. A.Y. OPENING BALANCE CLAIM U/S 36(1)(viia) Bad Debts written off Deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) Closing balance A B C D E 2013-14 1141.34 2039.28 4550.5 3409,16 2039.28 2014-15 2039.28 2078.7 3834.29 1795.01 2078.70 2015-16 2078.7 2926.41 2619.63 540.93 2619.63 5.4 The department's stand that the assessee s claim results in double deduction can also be proven as under. As per the assessee s own calculation the bad debt written off amount for A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 is (Rs.in Crs.) 2013- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05/10/2020 which is also an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act. In A.Y.2014-15, PCIT had sought to revise the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer on several issues which includes the issue before us for A.Y.2015-16. We find that this Tribunal in A.Y.2014-15 had held the action of the ld. PCIT in invoking revisionary jurisdiction in respect of the impugned issue before us as incorrect and decided the same in favour of the assessee. The relevant operative portion of the said order of this Tribunal for A.Y.2014-15 dated 05/10/2020 are as under:- D) The next issue relates to allowance of bad debts under clause (vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act. As per the applicable provisions of law for the assessment year under consideration, the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) requires maintenance of Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts (in short 'PBDD') account under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The deduction in respect of PBDD allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is required to be credited to this account. Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act requires bad debts written off to be debited to this account. The proviso t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought to our notice, pages 48 to 50 of the paper book as per which it is evident that full details of the claim were furnished by the assessee in the note forming part of the return of income and that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to file a detailed note justifying the above claim and assessee has submitted the same taking into consideration that there was no opening credit balance in PBDD under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer after examining the details submitted before him satisfied himself to allow the claim of bad debts written off by the assessee. Further, he submitted that the decision of the Assessing Officer to allow the claim cannot be held to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue just because in his order he does not make any elaborate discussion in respect of the claim. He submitted that merely because the Commissioner has a different opinion in the matter, it cannot render the order of Assessing Officer erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws :- A) CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108(Bom.) B) Anil Shah vs AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. 21. He further submitted that without prejudice to the above submissions, even considering the credit balance of ₹ 123.12 crores as per the assessment order for assessment year 2013-14, the opening credit balance for assessment year 2014-15 was only debit balance of ₹ 2388.11 crores as stated in page 5 of ld. PCIT order and hence there is no opening credit balance to be set off against the bad debts written off during the year. Accordingly, the entire bad debts written off has been correctly allowed in the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. In this regard, he relied on the decision of ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of SIDBI in ITA No. 743/Mum/2008 dated 15.02.2012 in which it was held that when there is no opening credit balance in provision for bad and doubtful debts account under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the entire bad debts written off has to be allowed as deduction. 24. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we notice that ld. PCIT initiated the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act by issuing show cause notice and the reasons mentioned in the show cause notice was that in computing the book profits under Section 115JB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
