TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer to allow consultancy fees (technical) amounting to ₹ 8,64,377/- iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(AA) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow ₹ 19,00,000/- paid to M/s Adulex Display Service in violation of Rule 46A. 3 Ground no.1 regarding bad debts. 3.1 The AO disallowed the claim of bad debts of ₹ 12,39,357/- on the ground that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions laid down u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the I T Act. 3.2 On appeal, the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee. 4 Before us, the ld DR has pointed out that in case of Times Foundation, the amount written off by the assessee is not pertaining to the trade debtor but it represents refundable deposits paid towards entertainment tax at the times foundation events. He has referred the details mentioned by the CIT(A) in para 3.1 of his order and submitted that when the amount does not pertain to trade debt and therefore, the assessee does not fulfil the conditions as prescribed u/s 36(2) of the I T Act. 4.1 On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement is that the assessee has to write off the debts as not recoverable during the year. Except the claim, in item no.3, remaining claim of bad debt as under the items nos 1, 2, 4 5 is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd (supra). 5.2 As regards the item no.3, in respect of Times Foundation, it is an undisputed fact that the said amount has not considered as debt but represents refundable deposits. Therefore, in the absence of any claim being a business loss and adjudication of the same by the lower authorities under the relevant provisions of law, the same cannot be allowed as claimed of bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the absence of the relevant records, we are constrained to disallow the claim of the assessee in respect of Times Foundation. Accordingly, this ground is partly allowed. 6 Ground no2 regarding disallowance of expenditure on account of venue management, venue expenses, professional fee and stage decoration expenses. 6.1 The Assessing Officer has disallowed 10% of the venue expenses, professional fee; stage decoration expenses incur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the ld CIT(A), qua this issue. 10 Ground no.4 regarding disallowance of ₹ 19 lacs paid to M/s Adulx Display services. 10.1 The assessee claimed miscellaneous expenses of ₹ 1,33,29,862/- which includes ₹ 19 lacs paid to M/s Adulx Display services. The assessee claimed to have paid this expenditure to different tent houses, stationers, for communication etc. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the confirmation of the ledger account in respect of inter-alia payment of ₹ 19 lacs, paid to M/s Adulx Display services. The assessee did not furnish the confirmation copy of the ledger account nor produce any supporting documentary evidence to show the genuineness and business need of the expenditure; accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 11 On appeal, the assessee furnished confirmation from M/s Adulx Display services and explained that due to lack of time the same could not be produced before the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A), after considering the confirmation in respect of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances namely: a) where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or b) whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer; or c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under rule (1) unless the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) or, as the case maybe, the Commissioner(Appeals), records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case maybe, the Commissioner(Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity; a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross examine the witness produced by the appellant, or b) to produce any evidence or document or any witn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
