M/S. Lucky Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 771/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09
Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.
For Appellant: Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)
…sition to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not at all be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd., 113 ITR 389, he submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said decision has held that income-tax authorities could rely on the report of the auditors if detailed information of the claims were not available. 11 He submitted that the AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the genuineness of the transaction and nature of advances is…