Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2012-13 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-12/ACIT-6(2)(1)/197/15-16 dated 03/10/2016 qua confirmation of certain disallowance towards provision of bad debts. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(2)(1), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 25/03/2015 wherein the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs.428.32 Lacs under normal provision after certain disallowances as against returned income of Rs.400.01 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 29/10/2012. The addition of Rs.26.88 Lacs on account for provision of bad debts is the sole subject matter of this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged as Transport contractors debited a sum of Rs.26.88 Lacs in the Profit and Loss account on account of provision for bad debts. It was noted that the aforesaid amount of provision was reduced from total debtors in the Balance Sheet. The same, in the opinion of Ld. AO, could not be allowed to the assessee in terms of Section 36(1)(viia) since the assessee was not a scheduled bank and secondly the assessee had not written-off the amount from the particular debtors account. Finally, the same was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 03/10/2016 wherein the matter was concluded in the following manner:- 6.2 I have carefully perused the assessment order and the submission of the appellant. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has not written off the debtors account and claim the deduction of provision of bad & doubtful debts in the profit and loss account. The relevant provision of the applicable section is reproduced for ready reference which is as under: 36 (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of [any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year]: [provided that in the case of [an assessee] to which clause (viia) applies, the amount of the deduction relating to any such debt or part thereof shall be limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause.] Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 [Explanation-For the purpose of this clause, any bad debt or part thereof written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee shall not include any provision for bad and doubtful debts made in the accounts of the assessee. 36 (2) In making any deduction for a bad debt or part thereof, the following provisions shall apply- [(i) no such deduction shall be allowed unless such debt or part thereof 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;] (ii) if the amount ultimately recovered on any such debt or part of debt is less than the difference between the debt or part and the amount so deducted, the deficiency shall be deductible in the previous year in which the ultimate recovery is made; (iii) any such debt or part of debt may be deducted if it has already been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of an earlier previous year [(being a previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year)], but the [Assessing] Officer had not allowed it to be deducted on the ground that it had not been established to have become a bad debt in that year; (iv) where any such debt or part of debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the previous year [(being a previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year)] and the [Assessing] Officer is satisfied that such debt or part became a bad debt in any earlier previous year not falling beyond a period f four previous years immediately preceding the previous year in which such debt or part is written off, the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 155 shall apply; [(v) where such debts or part of debt relates to advance made by an assessee to which clause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause.] Perusal of the explanation to section, 36(vii), makes it clear that any provision made for bad & doubtful debts which is included in the amounts written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the appellant is not an allowable deduction. Further, section 36(2)(i) also makes it clear that bad & doubtful debts is not allowable unless it is written off in the account of the assessee. It is seen that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tainwal Chemicals & Plastics India ltd. (34 taxmann.com 159) relied on by the appellant is not applicable in the instant case. In the case of Tainwal chemicals & Plastics India Ltd the provision of doubtful debt was debited to the profit and loss account and correspondingly the assessee reduced the assets by reducing amount of unsecured loans. But, in the instant case, the provision of bad & doubtful debt has been debited to the profit and loss account but corresponding debtors account were not reduced. Therefore, the case law referred to by the appellant is not applicable here to the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T R F Ltd. (190 Taxman 391) held that “after 1-4-1989, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that debts, in fact, has become irrecoverable; it is enough if bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in accounts of assessee”. In the instant case the appellant has not written off the bad & doubtful debts against the corresponding debtors accounts and therefore the claim of the appellant is rightly disallowed by the AO. Therefore, ground No.1 of the appeal is dismissed.
Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 4. The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Sunil Natha, drawing our attention to the financial statements as placed in the paper-book, submitted that the impugned amount as debited in the Profit & Loss Account was not mere provision in nature rather the particular debtors against which these amounts were debited were clearly identified and the impugned amount was reduced from the aggregate of ‘Sundry Debtors’ reflected in the Balance Sheet. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [2010 190 Taxman 257] which has been followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Tainwala Chemicals & Plastics India Ltd. [34 Taxmann.com 159] to support the contention that the reduction on gross basis, as done by the assessee, amounts to actual writing-off of the debts and it was not necessary that each and every debtors accounts was to be closed so as to make a valid claim. The same has been controverted by Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri Ram Tiwari, who submitted that the statutory conditions as envisaged by law were not fulfilled.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. So far as the factual matrix is concerned, we find that it is undisputed fact that the assessee has debited the impugned amount in the Profit & Loss account and reduced the corresponding amount from aggregate of Sundry Debtors in the Balance Sheet. The lower authorities have denied the claim on the premises that the impugned expenditure was mere provision in nature and secondly the individual accounts of the debtors were not closed by the assessee.
Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 6. In terms of ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2010 190 Taxman 391], it is settled position that post 01/04/1989, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It was enough if bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in accounts of assessee. Therefore, the only condition to be fulfilled by the assessee was that the debt is claimed as irrevocable in the books of accounts and the assessee need not prove the fact that the debt has actually become bad.
7. Since the assessee is not a scheduled bank, its claim certainly do not fall under 36(1)(viia) as rightly noted by Ld. AO. However, we find that the assessee’s claim fall u/s 36(1)(vii), which is evident from the submissions made by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) wherein the matter has examined by Ld. first appellate authority within the framework of provisions of Section 36(1)(vii).
8. Now the only question that survives for our consideration is that whether the reduction of the impugned amounts on aggregate basis without closing individual accounts entitle the assessee to claim the aforesaid deduction or not ?. The answer to the same lies in assessee’s favor by the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [2010 190 Taxman 257] wherein the Hon’ble court has held as under:- 3. In these civil appeals, we are concerned with assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. For the assessment year 1994-95, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 7,10,47,161 which the assessee-bank had reduced from Loans and Advances or Debtors on the ground that the impugned bad debt had not been written off in an appropriate manner as required under the Accounting principles. According to him, the impugned bad debt supposedly written off by the assessee-bank was a mere provision and the same could not be equated with the actual write off of the bad debt, as per the requirement of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('1961 Act', for short) read with Explanation thereto which Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 Explanation stood inserted in 1961 Act by Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 1-4-1989. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)', for short], who opined that it was not necessary for the purpose of writing off of bad debts to pass corresponding entries in the individual account of each and every debtor and that it would be sufficient if the debit entries are made in the profit and loss account and corresponding credit is made in the "Bad Debt Reserve Account". Against the decision of CIT(A) on this point, the Department preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ['Tribunal', for short]. Before the Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of the Department that write off of each and every individual account under the head 'Loans and Advances' or Debtors was a condition precedent for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. According to the Department, the claim of actual write off of bad debts in relation to Banks stood on a footing different from the accounts of the Non-Banking assessee(s), though it was not disputed before us that section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act covers Banking as well as Non-Banking assessees. According to the assessee, once a provision stood created and, ultimately, carried to the balance sheet wherein Loans and Advances or Debtors depicted stood reduced by the amount of such provision, then, there was actual write off because, in the final analysis, at the year-end, the so-called provision does not remain and the balance sheet at the year-end only carries the amount of loans and advances or debtors, net of such provision made by the assessee for the impugned bad debt. The Tribunal, accordingly, upheld the above contention of the assessee on three grounds. Firstly, according to the Tribunal, the assessee had rightly made a provision for bad and doubtful debt by debiting the amount of bad debt to the profit and loss account so as to reduce the profits of the year. Secondly, the provision account so created was debited and simultaneously the amount of loans and advances or debtors stood reduced and, consequently, the provision account stood obliterated. Lastly, according to the Tribunal, loans and advances or the sundry debtors of the assessee as at the end of the year lying in the balance sheet was shown as net of "provisions for doubtful debt" created by way of debit to the profit and loss account of the year. Consequently, the Tribunal, on this point, came to the conclusion that deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act was allowable.
On the question whether it was imperative for the assessee to close each and every individual account and its debtors in its books or a mere reduction in the loans and advances to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful debt was sufficient, the answer given by the Tribunal was that, in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. CIT [1981 130 ITR 95], the CIT(A) was right in coming to the conclusion that, since the assessee had written off the impugned bad debt in its books by way of a debit to the profit and loss account simultaneously reducing the corresponding amount from Loans and Advances or Debtors depicted on the asset side in the balance sheet at the close of the year, the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. This view was not accepted by the High Court which came to the conclusion by placing reliance on a relied upon judgment in the case of CIT v. Wipro Infotech Ltd. (See Page 5 of the Paper Book), that, in view of the insertion of the Explanation vide Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 1-4-1989, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala (supra) no more held the field and, consequently, mere creation of a provision did not amount to actual write off of bad debts, hence, these civil appeals.
5. At the outset, we may state that, in these civil appeals, broadly, two questions arise for determination. The first question which arises for determination concerns the manner in which actual write off takes place under the Accounting principles. The second question Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 which arises for determination in these civil appeals is, whether it is imperative for the assessee-bank to close the individual account of each debtor in its books or a mere reduction in the "Loans and Advances Account" or Debtors to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful debt is sufficient? 6. The first question is no more res integra. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010 320 ITR 577], [in which one of us (S.H. Kapadia, J.) was a party] had an occasion to deal with the first question and it has been answered, accordingly, in favour of the assessee vide Paragraph (25), which reads as under : "Prior to April 1, 1989, the law, as it then stood, took the view that even in cases in which the assessee(s) makes only a provision in its accounts for bad debts and interest thereon and even though the amount is not actually written off by debiting the profit and loss account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). [ See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari [1953] 24 ITR 537 (Bom.) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 95 (Guj.)]. Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in the accounts of the assessee. The said amendment indicates that before April 1, 1989, even a provision could be treated as a write off. However, after April 1, 1989, a distinct dichotomy is brought in by way of the said Explanation to section 36(1)(vii). Consequently, after April 1, 1989, a mere provision for bad debt would not be entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand 'how to write off'. If an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the asset account like sundry debtor's account, it would constitute a write off of an actual debt. However, if an assessee debits 'provision for doubtful debt' to the profit and loss account and makes a corresponding credit to the 'current liabilities and provisions' on the liabilities side of the balance-sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt. In the latter case, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction after April 1, 1989."
One point needs to be clarified. According to Shri Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Department, the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala (supra) was prior to the insertion of the Explanation vide Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 1-4-1989, hence, that law is no more a good law. According to the learned counsel, in view of the insertion of the said 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 him, 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. He 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 was the very reason why the Explanation stood inserted. According to him, prior to Finance Act, 2001, many assessees used to take the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act by merely debiting the impugned bad debt to the profit and loss account and, therefore, the Parliament stepped in by way of 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 this extent, we agree with the contentions of Shri Bhattacharya. However, as stated by Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 the Tribunal, in the present case, besides debiting the profit and loss account and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debt, the assessee-bank had correspondingly/simultaneously obliterated the said provision from its accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from 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 asset side of the balance sheet was shown as net of the provision "for impugned bad debt". In the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala (supra), a mere debit to the profit and loss account was sufficient to constitute actual write off whereas, after the Explanation, the assessee(s) is now required not only to debit the profit and loss account but simultaneously also reduce loans and advances or the debtors from the asset 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. This aspect is lost sight of by the High Court in its impugned judgment. In the circumstances, we hold, on the first question, that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in its books, as indicated above.
Coming to the second question, we may reiterate that it is not in dispute that section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act applies both to Banking and Non-Banking businesses. The manner in which the write off is to be carried out has been explained hereinabove. It is important to note that the assessee-bank has not only been debiting the profit and loss account to the extent of the impugned bad debt, it is simultaneously reducing the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end, as stated hereinabove. In other words, the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end in the balance-sheet is shown as net of the provisions for impugned debt. However, what is being insisted upon by the Assessing Officer is 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) of 1961 Act. This view has been taken by the Assessing Officer because the Assessing Officer apprehended that the assessee-bank might be taking the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of1961 Act, twice over. [See Order of CIT (A) at pages 66, 67 and 72 of the Paper Book, which refers to the apprehensions of the Assessing Officer]. In this context, it may be noted that there is 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 is based on an apprehension that, if the assessee fails to close each and every individual account of its debtor, it may result in assessee claiming deduction twice over. In this case, we are concerned with the interpretation of section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. We cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehensions/desirability. It is always open to the Assessing Officer to call for details of individual debtor's account if the Assessing Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that assessee has claimed deduction, twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken in subsequent years. There is also a flipside to the argument of the Department. Assessee has instituted recovery suits in Courts against its debtors. If individual accounts are to be closed, then the debtor/defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the Bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed.
Before concluding, we may refer to an argument advanced on behalf of the Department. According to the department, it is necessary to square off each individual account failing which there is likelihood of escapement of income from assessment. According to the Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 department, in cases where a borrower's account is 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 if the borrower repays the loan, the assessee will credit the repaid amount to the Loans and Advances Account and not to the profit and loss account which would result in escapement of income from assessment. On the other hand, if bad debt is written off by closing the borrower's account individually, then the repaid amount in subsequent years will be credited to the profit and loss account on which the assessee-bank has to pay tax. Although, prima facie, this argument of the Department appears to be valid, on a deeper consideration, it is not so for three reasons. Firstly, the Head Office Accounts clearly indicate, in the present case, that, on repayment in subsequent years, the amounts are 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 is not credited to the profit and loss account of the Head Office, which is ultimately what matters, then, there would be a mis-match between the Rural Branch Accounts and the Head Office Accounts. Lastly, in any event, section 41(4) of 1961 Act, inter alia, lays down that, where a deduction has been allowed in respect of a bad debt or a part thereof under section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act, 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, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer is sufficiently empowered to tax such subsequent repayments under section 41(4) of 1961 Act and, consequently, there is no merit in the contention that, if the assessee succeeds, then it would result in escapement of income from assessment.
For the afore-stated reason, we uphold the judgment of the Tribunal dated 31-7-2003, and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the assessee's appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs The ratio of the above decision has been followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Tainwala Chemicals & Plastics India Ltd. [34 Taxmann.com 159] wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under:- 3. In so far as question (c) is concerned, the Tribunal by the impugned order has followed the decision of the Apex court in the matter of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166/190 Taxman 257, wherein it has been held that once the provision of doubtful debt has been debited to the profit and loss account and corresponding provision has been credited or reduced from the debtors account in the balance-sheet, then, this would amount to writing off. In the present case, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the respondent-assessee has debited the provision of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and correspondingly reduced the assets by reducing the amount of unsecured loans. On the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that this would amount to writing off of the debt. Thus, on examination of facts it concluded that the respondent-assessee has written off the loan and would be entitled to the claim of bad debts. The Tribunal by the impugned order also recorded a finding of fact that once the respondent-assessee has lent Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 surplus money and offered the interest to tax as business income, then the activity of the respondent-assessee of lending money is a business activity. Therefore, the debt qualifies for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the provision has been written off and reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Vijaya Bank (supra), we see no reason to entertain question (c). Respectfully following the binding judicial pronouncement, we concur with the stand of Ld. AR and delete the impugned additions.
9. Resultantly, the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th July, 2018 Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 25.07.2018 Sr.PS:-Thirumalesh आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” �ायपीठ मुंबई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI �ी श��जीत दे,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मनोज कुमारअ�वाल, लेखा सद� के सम�। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपीलसं./ (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assistant Commissioner of बनाम/ Income Tax-6(2)(1) 301, Commercial Manor 4th Cross Clive Road, Masjid (E) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Mumbai-400 020 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCD-8064-C (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) :
Assessee by : Sunil Natha, Ld.AR Revenue by : Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR C O R R I G E N D U M
It is noticed that certain unforeseen typographical error has occurred in the above order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal on 25/07/2018 which are being sought to be rectified by way of this corrigendum.
The relevant modifications in the above order are carried out as under: - (a) Para-9 of the Order read as follows:
Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 “…… the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed.”
The same is replaced by following words: - “…… the assessee’s appeal stand dismissed.”
Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 30.07.2018 Sr.PS:- Thirumalesh आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ� 2. Respondent /��यथ� 3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब�ध अपील�य आयकर आयु�त, 4.The concerned CIT /संब�ध आयकर आयु�त 5.DR “D” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /�वभागीय ��त�न�ध, डी खंडपीठ,आ.अ.अ.मुंबई 6.Guard File/गाड� फाईल स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//