V-TEX CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2118/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 November 2018AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to furnish required details. However, considering the Revenue's agreement for another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned the disallowance of bad debts and the addition of sundry creditors. The assessee failed to provide necessary details for both during assessment and appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of bad debts and addition of sundry creditors were justified without providing supporting documentation. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

Hearing: 01.11.2018Pronounced: 01.11.2018

Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “SMC” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Aayakr ApIla saM./ (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) V-Tex Corporation Commissioner of Income Shri Vijay Khetan, C-23-24, Tax, (Appeals) -35 Vs. Achrat Baug, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-54 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AACPK7951Q अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : None प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri BS Bist, DR ुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 01.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 01.11.2018 AadoSa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-34/ITO-19(2)(2)/IT-93/14-15 vide dated 19.01.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, circle 19(2)(2) Mumbai (in short ‘ITO/ AO’) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide dated 13.03.2014 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in disallowing bad debts of ₹ 7,26,029/- and addition of Sundry Creditors of ₹ 7,84,631/-. For this assessee has raised the following ground No.1: -

“1. The order dtd. 13.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by Income tax officer is band in law and illegal. The Income Tax Officer has erred both on facts and in law. It is submitted that the additions of Baddebts ₹ 72,6029/- and Debit Note Receivable Included in the Sundry Creditors ₹ 784631/- be deleted now.”

3.

At the outset, it is noticed that the CIT(A) as well as AO has given several opportunities to the assessee to file the details of bad debts and sundry creditors. I find that even the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in the absence of the details by observing in Para 5.2 as under -

“5.2 Ground No1 relates to addition made by the AO on account of Bad debts ₹ 7,26,029/- and Debit Notice Receivable included in the Sundry Creditors ₹ 7,84,631/-. There is no dispute with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra). However, as pointed out by the AO and even during the appellate proceedings, it has been observed that the appellant has not filed even the basic details such as identification of the debts, when such debts have been routed through profit and loss account. Even no details of debit notes receivable has been filed either during the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings. It is seen that the AO has given several opportunities during the assessment proceedings but the appellate has chosen not to file any supporting documents. During the appellate proceedings also, the above details were not filed. Hence, I have no option but to confirm the addition made under section 41(1) of the Act by the AO. Accordingly, the ground of appeal filed by the AO on the issue of Bad Debts and Debit Notes receivable is dismissed.”

4. When this fact was confronted to the learned Sr. DR, he agreed that one more opportunity to be given to the assessee to file the details. Hence, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file to allow a reasonable opportunity to file the details in respect to both the additions. The order of CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01-11-2018. AadoSa kI GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk 01-11-2018kao kI ga[- .

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →