9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CBDT circular referred above. On perusal of the judgement in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. [ 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT ], no doubt Hon ble Court held that assessee can make a claim of deduction which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed. However, in the same judgement, Hon ble Court held that nothing impinges on the power of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim of the assessee . Thus, power of an appellate authority to admit additional claim is not affected. In the present case before us, there is no dispute on facts that bad debts have been written off. Thus, under the law, assessee is undisputedly eligible for the claim so made. The only hurdle created by the AO is on account of this claim not made by way of filing of revised return. Claim of assessee is ought to be allowed, more particularly when there is no embargo applicable on the appellate authority to consider such claim as enunciated in Goetz (India) Ltd. [ 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT ] Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee is allowed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member And Shri Girish Agra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince, assessee had filed the appeal before it under a bonafide belief that it was maintainable before the ITAT, Chennai Bench. After the said disposal of the appeal of the assessee by ITAT Chennai Bench on 29.05.2024, assessee submitted its appeal electronically before the Mumbai Bench of ITAT on 06.06.2024 i.e., within a weeks time along with petition for condonation of delay explaining the above stated facts and circumstances. Considering these facts on record and liberty granted by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Chennai, the delay is condoned and the matter is taken up for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2014, reporting a loss of Rs. 1,16,70,751/-. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2014 declaring Nil income and claiming the same loss as per the original return. During the year under consideration, assessee has shown revenue from operations at Rs. 54,23,213/- and other income at Rs. 97,66,522/- and as per P L Account assessee it has computed net profit of Rs. 31,821/- before tax. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee vide letter dated 10.08.2016 made a fresh claim for Bad De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditional claim for deduction other than filing a revised return. Further, question also arose as to admissibility of claim of deduction not made in the original return and not supported by revised return. The questions raised before Honourable Bombay High Court were allowed in favour of the assessee with the finding that it cannot termed perverse as the omission was not deliberate, malafide or even otherwise. 3.4. Assessee submitted all the requisite details of Bad Debts written off, vide letter dated 10.08.2019. Assessee commenced business of leasing and hire purchase financing from AY 1993-94 by entering into hire purchase agreements with various customers for providing commercial and heavy vehicles. It had earned Hire Purchase Finance income/rental during the period of tenure of hire purchase agreement which was accounted in the books of accounts to the credit to P L A/c and offered to tax from time to time. Details of finance charges offered to income-tax as per audited accounts are as under: Sr. No. Financial Year Amount (Rs.) 1. 1993-1994 13,37,778 2. 1994-1995 2,93,63,244 3. 1995-1996 11,80,54,000 4. 1996-1997 16,80,13,000 5. 1997-1998 19,50,57,000 6. 1998-1999 8,00,21,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written back in the book of accounts to the extent of Rs. 2,55,753/- and taken as income. Assessee also furnished party-wise details of the bad debts forming part of the paper book placed on record. It also submitted that in response to the notice dt. 28.11.2016, wherein ld. AO required the assessee to file bifurcation of bad debts amounts into outstanding principal and interest separately as well as sample ledger a/c of the parties, the same were submitted vide letter dt. 29.08.2016. Assessee also submitted the copies of the ledger a/c of certain parties as demanded wherein ld. AO wanted to know the last transactions made in ledger accounts. 3.8. Under these circumstances, bad debts written off during the year amounting to Rs. 6.17,28,003/- as irrecoverable and claimed as deduction in the revised computation were sought to be allowed. 3.9. Assessee relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) wherein it is held that after 01.04.1989, for allowing deduction for the amount of any bad debts or part thereof u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that the debt in fact has become irrecoverable; it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
