9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT] while analyzing Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act has held that it does not require the assessee to establish that the debt written off was bad and all that is required is it being written off as such. Meaning thereby, no evidence or other things needs to be sought by the Department from the assessee when he is treating such amount as bad debts. The only consideration is that such amount has been treated as bad debts in the books of accounts of the assessee. This is only the requirement to the provision. The Ld. DR also could not place any evidence before us to demonstrate that the amount of 64,80,000/- was already recovered by the assessee. No addition should be sustained in the hands of the assessee on this issue of treatment of amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee had rented its commercial building to the International Institute of Planning Management for ₹ 10,00,000/- per month for the period April, 2012 to June, 2012 and for the period from July, 2012 to March, 2013 for an amount of ₹ 11,00,000/- per month. The Assessing Officer however, on perusal of the profit and loss account observed that the assessee had shown rent receipts only to the extent of ₹ 64,20,000/- as against ₹ 1,29,00,000/- (April, 2012 to June, 2012, ₹ 10,00,000 x 3 = ₹ 30,00,000/- and for July, 2012 to March, 2013, ₹ 11,00,000/- x 9 = ₹ 99,00,000/-, Total ₹ 1,29,00,000/-) and thus, there was difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on record by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) vide Para 6 and 7 of his order has decided this case against the assessee and has upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. reported in 2014 51 Taxmann.com 499 (Bom.) wherein analyzing the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act which provides the conditions precedent for bad debts, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the Tribunal in that case had deleted the disallowance by observing that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) had ignored the amendme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived license fees of ₹ 64,20,000/-. However, they have not paid balance amount of ₹ 64,80,000/-. The amount was disputed. The matter went to the Court for recovery of possession and license fee in arrears. In the Civil Suit No. 376/2013 dated 23.07.2014, the Court passed decree in favour of the assessee company for recovery of arrears of license fees. That however, it is the contention of the assessee that they have still not recovered during the FY 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14, the amount of ₹ 64,80,000/- and therefore, the assessee has treated the amount as bad debts. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra.) while analyzing Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act has held that it does not require the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
