9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his should have been allowed only as additional ground as it does not emanate from the assessment order. This additional ground was apparently admitted by the CIT(A) without calling for remand report. Since the issue was restored to the file of the AO to adjudicate this issue in accordance with law, revenue is not aggrieved by this direction. Addition on account of bad debts written off - AO had not allowed the claim by holding that the claim does not fall within the ambit of provisions of sec.36(1)(vii) read with sec.36(2) as the amounts were written off without permission of the Reserve Bank of India as required under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and accordingly he brought the amount to tax - HELD THAT:- Fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iefly facts of the case are that the assessee is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and job work of PP-FIBC bags. Return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed on 15/02/2011 declaring a total income of ₹ 1,55,05,270/-. The said return was take up for scrutiny after processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] and the assessment was completed us 143(3) vide order dated 22/3/2013 on a total income of ₹ 13,22,67,166/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer [AO] made an addition of ₹ 8,33,81,925/- on account of unrealized export benefits accounted as inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t represents enhanced price claimed by the assessee-company from its customers to meet the cost of input on account of adverse exchange fluctuations. It was stated before the AO that enhanced price was not accepted by its customers. Debit notes raised by the assessee-company were not accepted by the customers. Hence, it is claimed that income offered to tax in the earlier year on account of such debit claims on account of such debit notes were written off during previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and claimed as bad debt. The AO had no allowed the claim by holding that the claim does not fall within the ambit of provisions of sec.36(1)(vii) read with sec.36(2) as the amounts were written off without permission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished in support of the contention that the amount of ₹ 4,54,13,164/- was taxed twice. The matter was set aside for due verification by the AO. As regards the bad debt written off of ₹ 3,33,79,971/-, the ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim following the order for assessment year 2009-10 wherein it was held that when the accounts of bad debt are also in the books of account, the same should be allowed as deduction. 5. Being aggrieved by this order, the revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. The ld.CIT(DR) vehemently argued that the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have set aside the issue of examining the claim of double taxation in respect of duty free import authorization scheme, inasmuch as the same has been received and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appeal filed by the assessee-company the claim for double taxation was only in respect of ₹ 3,13,72,097/-. This should have been allowed only as additional ground as it does not emanate from the assessment order. This additional ground was apparently admitted by the CIT(A) without calling for remand report. Since the issue was restored to the file of the AO to adjudicate this issue in accordance with law, revenue is not aggrieved by this direction. Hence, this ground of appeal by the revenue is dismissed. 9. Ground Nos.3 and 4 challenge the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of bad debt written off. From the facts emanating from the assessment order it is clear that the amounts written off represent the claim ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (97 ITR 546); v. CIT vs. Shivlal (193 ITR 196) and vi. Mohandas Moolchand vs. CIT (212 ITR 482) In the case of Mohandass Moolchand (supra), the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court held (head-note) that : The assessee was not a creditor at any point of time nor was K a debtor and as such the first necessary element for claiming the amount as a bad debt did not exist besides the other requirements of law. The assessee had also failed to produce any evidence by which it could have been proved that A had made a claim for the said amount from the assessee, and, therefore, there was no justification for claiming the amount as a business loss. In the instant case, if the income had not accrued, as claimed by the assessee-company in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
