Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR
"ी टी.आर. से""ल कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद" के सम#। ] ] BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2018-19 Ishan Equipments Pvt.Ltd. The Dy.CIT बनाम/ Survey No.144-15, NH No.8 Circle-1(1)(1) v/s. Sankharda Vadodara Nr. Police Chowki Vadodara – 391 350 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAACI 4131 R (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, ARs Revenue by : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.12.2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. The appeal arises from the assessment order framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “AO”]. Ishan Equipments Pvt.Ltd. vs. The DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 Facts of the Case:
The assessee is engaged in the business of engineering and fabrication. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 25.10.2018, declaring a total income of Rs.1,51,43,170/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-Assessment Scheme, 2019, with identified issues, such as, Verification of genuineness of expenses, and Verification of duty drawback received.
2.1. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 19.04.2021, making some additions, including:
• Disallowance of penalty expenditure amounting to Rs.4,81,985/- under section 37. • Disallowance of bad debts of Rs.24,50,304/- under section 36(1)(vii).
Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who partially allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the remaining additions, the assessee has filed this appeal before us with following grounds: 1. Disallowance of Penalty Expenditure of Rs.4,81,985/- The Assessing Officer erred in disallowing penalty u/s 37 of Rs.4,81,985/-. This penalty of Rs.4,81,985/- was already disallowed and added in the total Income at the time of submitting original return of Income filed on 25.10.2018. Hence it is requested to delete the addition made by the A.O. as it amounts to double addition.
2. Disallowance of Bad Debts W/Off Rs.24,50,304 /- Ishan Equipments Pvt.Ltd. vs. The DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 The Assessee has written off Rs.24,50,304/- a bad debts in the A.Y. 2018-19. This amount has been written off as bad debts and irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee company.
The amount of the debt was taken into account while computing the income during the earlier years.
As all the terms and conditions and provisions of Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are complied, it is allowable expenditure as bad debts.
Hence it is requested to delete the addition of Rs.24,50,304/- being bad debts written off, made by the A.O.
During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee stated that the penalty expenditure was already disallowed in the computation of income filed with the return. The disallowance was made under Section 43B instead of Section 37 due to a clerical error.
4.1. The AR provided a detailed break-up of the disallowed amounts in the ITR and confirmed that the penalty expenditure of Rs.4,81,985/- was part of the total disallowance of Rs.21,62,259/-. The AR also stated that following are the amounts included in the list totalling to Rs.4,81,985/-. Amount (Rs.) ------------------ 1. Penalty Expense 3,77,385/- 2. Penalty on TDS (F.Y. 2016-17) 1,04,600/- 4.2. The AR requested the deletion of the double disallowance made by the AO on account of this clerical error. Ishan Equipments Pvt.Ltd. vs. The DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 4.3. Regarding Bad Debts Disallowance of Rs.24,50,304/-, the AR submitted that the bad debts of Rs.24,50,304/-, comprising amounts due from BGR Energy System Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.3,51,265/-) and SIMON India Ltd. (Rs.20,99,039/-), were written off in the books of accounts during F.Y. 2017-18 after settlement agreements were reached with both parties. The AR further stated that these amounts were offered to income by way of sale in the earlier years. The AR cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (323 ITR 397), wherein it was held that it is sufficient if the bad debts are written off in the books, and there is no need to establish that the debt is irrecoverable. The AR argued that all the conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act were satisfied, and therefore the disallowance was unjustified.
The Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the assessee and the Department, along with the orders of the lower authorities. We also perused the material available on records. Upon reviewing the computation of income and the ITR filed by the assessee, it is evident that the total disallowance of Rs.21,62,259/- included the said penalty expenditure. The error occurred due to a clerical mistake in selecting the section under which the disallowance was made. In light of this, we hold that the AO’s disallowance under Section 37 leads to a duplication, which is unsustainable. The addition of Rs.4,81,985/- is hereby deleted. Ishan Equipments Pvt.Ltd. vs. The DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 6.1. The assessee wrote off bad debts of Rs.24,50,304/-, which included Rs.3,51,265/- due from BGR Energy System Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.20,99,039/- from SIMON India Ltd.. The AO disallowed the claim, citing the absence of supporting documentation during the assessment proceedings. The assessee provided sufficient evidence in the form of ledger accounts and minutes of settlement meetings with the debtors, proving that the amounts were genuinely written off after settlement agreements. The Supreme Court’s ruling in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT clarifies that after 01.04.1989, there is no requirement to prove that the debt has become irrecoverable. It is enough that the debt has been written off in the books. Based on the submissions and the evidence provided, it is clear that the conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act were met, and the disallowance by the AO was unjustified. The disallowance of Rs.24,50,304/- is, therefore, deleted.
6.2. In view of the above findings, we allow the assessee’s appeal on both grounds. The disallowances made by the AO under sections 37 and 36(1)(vii) of the Act are deleted.