AURO ELECTRONICS,PUDUCHERRY vs. ACIT,PUDUCHERRY CIRCLE, PUDUCHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 788/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 March 2022AY 2016-174 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amounts claimed as bad debts represented waivers of installation and service charges, and some sales returns inadvertently grouped under bad debts. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim reasonable after reviewing the provided details and credit notes.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed bad debts of Rs. 4,60,305/- in its profit and loss account. The AO disallowed this claim, stating that the transactions were not bad debts in the normal sense and lacked documentary evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the amounts waived as installation and service charges, and sales returns, can be considered as bad debts for the purpose of disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 01.03.2022Pronounced: 03.03.2022

आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry in dated 21.07.2020. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Circle-1, Puducherry for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), vide order dated 18.12.2018.

1.

2 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the bad debts claimed by the assessee.

3.

Brief facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed from the profit & loss account of the assessee that it has claimed bad debts amounting to Rs.4,60,305/-. The assessee was asked to explain the nature of debt, details of the party and its function viz-a-viz business activity of the firm. The assessee replied that the bad debts includes waiver of installation and service charges and in some cases sales return, which were inadvertently grouped under bad debts. The assessee before AO filed credit notes issued by the assessee. According to AO, none of these transactions are in the nature of bad debts in the normal sense of the word. He further noted that the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence in the form of bills and vouchers and did not explain circumstances under which this bad debt was incurred. The AO accordingly disallowed and added to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A).

3 3.1 The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO without going into the details and submissions filed by the assessee, by simply saying that the assessee has not included the above bad debts in its income in the previous years. According to him, the assessee has to give any proof that sum be accounted for as income in the accounts of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard ld.Senior DR, Shri G. Johnson but none is present from assessee’s side. We have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the case records. We noted that the assessee before AO as well as before CIT(A) claimed that these amounts represents amounts written off due to waiver of installation charges and service charges. The assessee also claimed that it had inadvertently debited few sales returns under the same head. The assessee before AO as well as before CIT(A) furnished the list of customers to whom installation and service charges were waived and sales returns were effected along with necessary credit notes. This fact is noted by CIT(A) as well as AO in their orders but none has gone into these details. From the very same details even now filed before us, we are of the view that the claim of bad debts by the assessee is already declared in the income and due to waiver

4 it was claimed as bad debts. We find that the claim of assessee is reasonable and accordingly allow the same.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the court on 3rd March, 2022 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →