Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2295 - ITAT JAIPURDisallowance u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) - Provision of Bad Debt written off u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) by considering the closing balance in the Provision as credit balance - HELD THAT:- AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee with the statement that the assessee has already taken a lot of time and the case was time barred on 31st March, 2014. Accordingly a final opportunity was given to the assessee to give details by 18.03.2014. No reply was received by the AO and accordingly the claim of the assessee was disallowed considering the fact that there was no new provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee. Now the assessee has filed the details of provision made for bad and doubtful debts and submitted that the assessee has made fresh provision though the written back of provision was more than the new provision made during the year, therefore, there was a credit balance in the NP Account. Assessee did not furnish the relevant details before the authorities below, we set aside this issue to the record of the AO for verification of necessary details and particularly the fact of new provision made by the assessee during the year under consideration and then decide the issue as per law. Needless to say, the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. MAT provisions applicability in the case of the financial corporations as the accounts are not maintained as per Schedule-VI of the Companies Act - HELD THAT:- Identical issue was decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years 2017 (7) TMI 1196 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT as held question of law which has been framed is very clear whether the respondent assessee will be governed u/s 115JA read with Section 2(18)(a). On a plain reading as reproduced above and in view of forgoing conclusion and even as per statement of Mr. Mathur, it will not be covered. However, he has tried to take support of Section 43 which is misconceived. While interpreting the taxing statute, the Court has to rely upon the taxing statute and not any other provisions. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of expenditure made on account of prior period - AO has made a disallowance on account of rent paid of the earlier years to the Directorate of Estate, Government of Rajasthan for Bikaner House expenses, New Delhi, on the ground that these expenses pertain to the earlier years and, therefore, cannot be allowed for the year under consideration - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has given the finding that the demand was raised by the Government of Rajasthan during the year under consideration and, therefore, the same was crystallized during the year itself. Once the fact of raising the demand by the Government of Rajasthan during the year has not been disputed by the AO, therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of ld. CIT (A) in allowing the claim of expenditure on the ground that the same is crystallized during the year under consideration. Addition on account of the Provision made against NPA which was written back during the year under consideration - assessee challenged the action of the AO but could not succeed as the CIT (A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO on the ground that the assessee has not furnished the relevant year-wise details to substantiate its claim - HELD THAT:- As directed the AO to reconsider the claim of the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12 and 12-13 after verification of the new provision made during those years. Further, if any part of the amount which is written back by the assessee during the year under consideration was already allowed in the earlier assessment years then to that extent the written back amount has to be included in the income of the assessee. The amount of written back of provision which was never allowed by the AO in the assessment proceedings cannot be added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly we set aside this issue to the record of the AO for verification of all the details relevant to this issue as how much of the amount written back during the year under consideration was allowed in the earlier years and only to that extent the same has to be added to the income of the assessee. Assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order.
|