PME POWER SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the provision was already adjusted in the profit and loss account. To ensure justice and examine the possibility of double disallowance, the matter was remitted back to the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction for provisions for bad debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, stating it was a provision and not an actual write-off. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the provision for bad debts was correctly disallowed by the AO, and whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without adequate opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld.
CIT (Appeals)-22, New Delhi dated 28.11.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.
The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :-
“1. That the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at total income of Rs.7,87,87,302/- and accordingly denies its liability to pay tax, interest demanded thereon. 2. The Ld. AO is totally unjustified in making addition of Rs.4,35,16,422/- on a/c of provisions for bad debts. The same provision has already been reduced from the expenses in the profit & loss a/c as it was a provision relating to previous year. Just to neutralize the income the ./2020 assessee had to be reduced the same amount in the computation of income. So the addition made is totally unjustified.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the ex-parte order and that too without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) is totally unjustified in confirming the order of the Ld. AO without giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A/234B/234C/ 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961.”
Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that assessee was asked to explain the claim of deduction of Rs.5,37,09,570/- claimed under Schedule BP of the ITR along with details in support of such claim. AO noted that this aggregate claim included claim for provision for bad debt written off of Rs.4,35,16,422/-. AO further observed that assessee itself has stated that the above sum is only a provision for bad debt and not actually written off, therefore, AO disallowed the provisions.
Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite opportunities. He confirmed the addition made by the AO.
Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.
ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has already reduced the said provision from the expenses in the profit & loss account
Ld. DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
Upon careful consideration, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that assessee has already adjusted the provision by reducing the same in profit & loss account and the AO has fallen into error in adding the same again. On the facts and circumstances as stated above, in our considered opinion and in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be remitted to the file of AO. AO shall examine whether it is a case of double addition or not by referring to the assessee’s computation of income and books of account. Both the counsels fairly agreed to the above proposition. Needless to add, assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of May, 2023.
More judgments on Section 234A
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026