DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. THIAGARAJAR MILLS (P) LIMITED, MADURAI

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

2. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee claiming deduction u/s 36(l)(vii) of the provision for bad and doubtful debts, ignoring the fact that deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) is allowable for only the bad debts actually written off as irrecoverable from the books of the assessee.

3. The CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank reported in (2010) 323 ITR 166. Vijaya Bank is an entity eligible for deduction of provision for bad debts u/s 36(1)(viia). In view of the first proviso to sec. 36(1)(vii), there is a difference in the applicability of sec.36(1)(vii) between the banking companies eligible for deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) and other entities.

4. The CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the fact that even in the relied case of Vijaya Bank, the Apex Court has accepted the fact that post insertion of the Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) vide Finance Act 2001, with effect from 01.04.1989, mere debit of the impugned amount of bad debt to the P&L account would not amount to actual write off, and therefore would not be eligible for deduction u/s

5. The CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the fact that in the case of Vijaya Bank, the decision was given in favour of the assessee only after the Apex Court held that the assessee in that case had debited the P&L account and also reduced the corresponding amount from the "Loans and Advances/Debtors" on the assets side of the balance sheet and it accounted to actual write off. On the contrary, in the present case in hand, the assessee has reduced the corresponding amount from the "Provisions for bad debts" on the liability side of the balance sheet and therefore would not amount to actual write off.

6. For these and such other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored.

Even after the decree, the assessee perused the matter with the company, but they did not pay any amount to the assessee. As amount had become bad debt, the assessee company debited the said amount to the P & L A/c and reduced the same from the trade receivables shown in the balance sheet. In order to keep the balance receivables alive, the amount was directly not credited to debtor’s account and in this regard, relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT reported in [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC). The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the AO, the deduction is allowable only in a case where the assessee has write off bad debt by debiting to P & L A/c and crediting to respective sundry debtor’s account in the books of accounts of the assessee. Since, the assessee has made merely a provision for bad debts by debiting into P & L A/c and reducing the same from sundry debtor’s account in the balance sheet without actually crediting to respective debtor’s account as required u/s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s.36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act"), the claim of its case, cannot be allowed. Therefore, rejected the arguments of the assessee and disallowed claim for provision for bad debts amounting to Rs.5,66,98,830/-.

The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:

9. I have considered the submissions made by the authorized representative to decide the dispute regarding the allowability of bad debts in the instant case. It would be worthwhile to visit the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank (Supra). The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced below:- "According to the revenue, in view of the insertion of the Explanation in section 36(1)(vii) with effect from 1-4-1989, a mere debit of the impugned amount of bad debt to the profit and loss account would not amount to actual write off. According to it, the Explanation makes it very clear that there is a dichotomy between actual write off on the one hand and a provision for bad and doubtful debt on the other. It was submitted that a mere debit to the profit and loss account would constitute a provision for bad and doubtful debt; it would not constitute actual write off and that :: 6 ::

was the very reason why the Explanation stood inserted. According to the department, prior to the Finance Act, 2001, many assesses used to take the benefit of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) by merely debiting the impugned bad debts to the profit and loss account and, therefore, the parliament stepped in by way of the Explanation to say that mere reduction of profits by debiting the amount to the profit and loss account per se would not constitute actual write off. To that extent, the contentions of the revenue were to be accepted. However, as stated by the Tribunal, in the instant case, besides debiting the profit and loss account and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debt, the assessee-bank had corresponding amount form loans and advances/debtors on the asset side of the balance sheet and, consequently, at the end of the year, the figure in the loans and advances or the debtors on the assets side of the balance sheet was shown as net of the provision 'for impugned bad debt'. After the insertion of the Explanation the assessee(s) is now required not only to debit the profit and loss account but simultaneously, also to reduce loans and advances or the debtors from the assets side of the balance sheet to the extent of the corresponding amount so that at the end of the year the amount of loans and advances/debtors is shown as net of provisions for impugned bad debt.

However, what was being insisted upon by the assessing Officer was that mere reduction of the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end would not suffice and, in the interest of transparency, it would be desirable for the assessee-bank to close each and every individual account of loans and advances or debtors as a pre-condition for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(vii). That view had been taken by the Assessing Officer because he apprehended that the assessee- bank might be taking the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii). In that context, it must be noted that there was no finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had unauthorisedly claimed the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii), twice over. The order of the Assessing officer was based on an apprehension that if the assessee failed to close each and every individual account of its debtor, it might result in the assessee claiming deduction twice over. In the instant case, the Court was concerned with the interpretation of section 36(1)(vii). The matter could not be decided on the basis of apprehensions/desirability. It was always open to the Assessing Officer to call for details of individual debtor's account if the Assessing Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the assessee had claimed deduction twice over. In fact, that exercise had been undertaken in subsequent years. There was also a flipside to the argument of the department. The assessee had instituted recovery suits in the Courts against its debtors. If individual accounts were to be closed. Then the debtor/defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the bank statement and contend that no amount was due and payable, in which event the suit would be dismissed.

According to the department, it was necessary to square off each individual account failing which there was likelihood of escapement of income from assessment. According to the department, in cases where a borrower's account was written off by debiting profit and loss account and by crediting loans and advances or debtors accounts on the asset side of the balance sheet, then as and when in the subsequent years the borrower would repay the loan, the assessee would result in escapement of income from assessment. On the other hand, if bad debt was written off by closing the borrower's account individually, then the repaid amount in the subsequently years would be credited to the profit and loss account on which the assessee-bank would have to pay tax. Although, prima-facie, the argument of the department appeared to be valid, on a deeper consideration, it was not so for three reasons. Firstly, the head officer accounts clearly indicated in the instant case that on repayment in subsequent years, the amounts were duly offered for tax. Secondly, one has to keep in mind that, under the accounting practice, the accounts of the rural branches have to tally with the accounts of the head office. If the repaid amount in subsequent years would not be credited to the profit and loss account of the head office, which is ultimately what matters, then there would be a mismatch between the rural branch's accounts and the head office accounts. Lastly, in any event section 41(4), inter alia, lays down that, where a deduction has been allowed in respect of a bad debt or a part thereof under section 36(a)(vii), then if the amount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference between the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income-tax as the income of the previous year in which it is recovered. In the circumstances, the Assessing officer was sufficiently empowered to tax such subsequent repayments under section 41(4) and, consequently, there was no merit in the contention that if the assessee would succeed, then it would result in escapement of income from assessment." 9.1. The fact in the case of the appellant company is very similar to the facts in case of M/s.Vijaya Bank (Supra) which has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (Supra), the claim of bad debts of Rs.5,66,98,830/- is allowed and addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted.

Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has passed an order for recovery of dues and also winding up of the company, which clearly proves that the amount receivable from said company is a bad and doubtful. The assessee had also write off the debt by debiting to provision for bad and doubtful debts account and reducing the same from outstanding sundry debtor’s account in the balance sheet. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT and also decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of M/s.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (supra), submitted that no doubt, the co-ordinate Bench had distinguished the Vijaya Bank case, while dealing with provision for bad debts and fact remains that in the case of M/s.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., the assessee has made an adhoc provision for bad debts, whereas, in the present case, the assessee has identified the debt which is bad and irrecoverable and also reduced the same from the sundry debtor’s balance in the balance sheet which tantamount to write off of bad debts. Therefore, the case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (supra). The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly allowed relief to the assessee and their orders should be upheld.

Further, as per provisions of Sec.36(1)(vii) of the Act, any bad debt write off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, would not include any provision for bad debts made in the accounts of the assessee. In other words, w.e.f.01.04.1989, a mere provision for bad debts per se was not entitled for deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act, and this legal position is reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT reported in [2010] 320 ITR 571 (SC). Therefore, from the above, it is very clear that in order to claim deduction for any bad debts, such bad debts should be write off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee by debiting into P & L A/c and crediting into sundry debtor’s account in the books of accounts of the assessee. In this case, the assessee has made a mere provision for bad debts without actual write off bad debts in the books of accounts of the assessee by crediting into respective debtors account. Therefore, in our considered view, the assessee did not satisfied the conditions prescribed u/s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s.36(2) of the Act, to claim deduction towards bad debts.

CIT (supra), we find that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (supra), is on unique facts, because, considering the nature of banking industry and accounting treatment given for provision for bad debts in the books of accounts of banks. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (supra), cannot be applied to other than the banking cases and this legal position has been discussed by co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., in where, it has been clearly made a distinction between write off bad debts and provision for bad and doubtful debts in the case of banking companies and other than banking companies. Since, the accounting treatment for provision for bad debts, in a case of banking company is governed by provisions of Sec.36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act, and also banks are operating under unique circumstances, in Vijaya Bank case, it was held that reducing the amount of provision for bad debts from the sundry debtor’s account in the balance sheet tantamount to write off bad debts. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT (supra), very clearly held that write off of bad debts cannot include any provision for bad debts made in the accounts of the assessee and this principle has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme

:: 12 ::

Court in the case of PCIT v. Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd., in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.672/2020, where, it has been held as under:

17. It is evident from the above rulings of this court, that:

(i) The amount of any bad debt or part thereof has to be written-off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year;

(ii) Such bad debt or part of it written-off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee cannot include any provision for bad and doubtful debts made in the accounts of the assessee;

(iii) No deduction is allowable unless the debt or part of it "has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year", or represents money lent in the ordinary course of the business of banking or money-lending which is carried on by the assessee;

(iv) The assessee is obliged to prove to the AO that the case satisfies the ingredients of Section 36(l)(vii) as well as Section 36(2) of the Act.

"16. Now, a question under s. 10(2)(xi) can only arise if there is a bad or doubtful debt. Before a debt can become bad or doubtful it must first be a debt. What is meant by debt in this connection was laid down by Rowlatt J., in Curtis v. J. & G. Oldfield Ltd., (1925) 9 TC 319 as follows :-

"When the Rule speaks of a bad debt it means a debt which is a debt that would have come into the balance sheet as a trading debt in the trade that is in question and that it is bad. It does not really mean any bad debt which, when it was a good debt, would not have come in to swell the profits. "

"44. As stated above, Section 36(1)(vii) after 1.4.1989 draws a distinction between write off and provision for doubtful debt. The IT Act deals only with doubtful debt. It is for the assessee to establish that the provision is made as the loan is irrecoverable. However, in view of Explanation which keeps such a provision outside the scope of "written off" bad debt, Section 37cannot come in. If an item falls under Sections 30 to 36, but is excluded by an Explanation to Section 36 (1) (vii) then Section 37 cannot come in. Section 37 applies only to items which do not fall in Section 30 to 36. If a provision for doubtful debt is expressly excluded from Section 36 (1) (vii) then such a provision cannot claim deduction under Section 37 of the IT Act even on the basis of "real income theory" as explained above. "

Order pronounced on the 09th day of June, 2023, in Chennai.