M/S DESAI & CO,HUBLI vs. ADDL..C.I.T., HUBLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 421/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 February 2020AY 2008-091 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the entire disallowance of bad debts. It found that the CIT(A) admitted the fact that bad debts were written off by the assessee and followed the Supreme Court judgment in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed write-off of bad debts. The Assessing Officer made disallowances, and the CIT(A) confirmed 25% of the disallowance for one assessment year. The assessee argued that ledger extracts of customers were provided, and the bad debts were actually written off.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of bad debts written off by the assessee is justified when the fact of write-off is admitted and supported by documentary evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

ITA Nos.420 to 422/B/2014 & 1485/B/2016 by observing that there may be probable omission and commission and inflation. He submitted that when affidavit and confirmations of all 39 customers is made available and 19 out of them were examined on random selection, this allegation of omission and commission and inflation is without any basis and therefore, entire disallowance should be deleted. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A).

6.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that confirming of 25% of the disallowance in A. Y. 2010 – 11 is without any basis. Hence, we feel it proper to delete the entire disallowance in all these four years because no difference in facts is pointed out by the learned DR of the revenue in A. Y. 2010 – 11 and preceding three years. We order accordingly.

7.

The next issue in dispute is about disallowance of the assessee’s claim for write off of bad debts. On this issue, learned AR of the assessee drawn our attention to page 17 of the order of CIT (A) for A. Y. 2010 – 11 and pointed out that on this page, it is noted by CIT (A) that the assessee has filed before him ledger extracts of all the customers whose outstanding balance has been written off as bad debts in A. Y. 2010 – 11. He submitted that therefore, this is admitted position of fact that bad debts were in fact written off by the assessee. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 241 CTR 45 and submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by this judgment. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A).

8.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per the finding of CIT (A) on page 17 of his order for A. Y. 2010 – 11, there is no dispute that the bad debts in question were actually written off by the assessee and hence, by respectfully following this judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra), we delete the entire disallowance of bad debts written off in all these four years because no difference in facts is pointed out by the learned DR of the revenue in A. Y. 2010 – 11 and preceding three years.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(vii)

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →