9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after referred as 'the Act') by the ACIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Heard and perused the record. The assessee is in appeal raising following grounds; 1 "That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case , the Ld CIT (Appeals)-I, Gurgaon has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Ld. ACIT Circle 4(1), Gurgaon rejecting the claim of the appellant for write off of the outstanding due from Sh Sanjay Aggarwal of Rs 4,00,000/- charged to Profit & Losss Account. 2 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case , the Ld CIT (Appeals)-I, Gurgaon has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Ld. ACIT Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, its write off is allowable u/s 37. He relied judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in S. R. Koshti vs. CIT 296 ITR 165 (Gujarat) to contend that if under a mistake of misconception a wrong section has been cited that cannot be basis for denying the deduction. He also relied judgment of the Tribunal in Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi. ITA 1226/DEL/2016 order Dated 14-11-2019. 4. As with regard to ground of disallowance of Rs. 67,147/- returned to M/s. Hughes Communications Ltd. pursuant to court cases, Ld. Counsel submitted that sum of Rs. 7,81,481/- was received from this entity which had made a wrong payment and the appellant considered the credit in the bank account as its income and raised an inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- was made to Sh. Sanjay Agarwal or the payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- to M/s. Hughes Communications under the Court decree. Ld. CIT(A) has held that as Rs. 4 lakhs was not trading debit and was never taken into account as part of income of any previous year in such circumstances write off advance of Rs. 4 lakhs is not allowable deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 7. There is no doubt that within the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act the deduction was not allowable. A perusal of the submissions of assessee before Ld. CIT(A) and the grounds raised in the first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) show that assessee had not made any specific claim that instead of provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, Ld. AO shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r write off of the outstanding due. It is not the claim here also that it was an expenditure allowable u/s 37 of the Act which the ld. Tax Authorities have failed to allow. Thus Bench is of considered view that the assessee at this stage cannot seek relief to allow the claim u/s 37 of the Act merely because some relief has been given by Ld. CIT(A) in regard to other addition. Thus, ground no. 1 is decided against the assessee. 8. In regard to Ground no. 2 it can be appreciated that Ld. CIT(A) has considered the amount of Rs. 7,81,481/- as an advance received by the appellant and accordingly the interest was allowed u/s 37 of the Act. Ld. Tax Authorities have failed to appreciate that the amount was in fact not an advance but was received m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
