Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 825 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed income - Treating the receipts wrongly appearing in Form 26AS as income of the appellant - As contended by the Ld. Representative of the assessee that the appellant claimed TDS credit on the basis of credit appearing in Form 26AS - as assessee has argued that the entry of receipts from Goa Hotels and Clubs Pvt. Ltd., D. S. Gupta Construction Pvt. Ltd. were not recorded and raised by the appellant as though in Form 26AS, therefore, the same is liable to be deleted - HELD THAT:- Since both the parties agreed to re-confirm the transactions, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the issue before the AO to re-consider all the entries and to decide the matter of controversy in accordance with law. Needless to say that an opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the assessee. Disallowance on account of doubtful advances u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) for the purpose of computing total income under normal provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- Once a provision in respect of doubtful debts stood created and ultimately carried to the Balance-sheet, wherein Loans and Advances or debtors stood reduced by the amount of such provision, then such treatment amounted to actual write off because, in the final analysis, at the year end, the so called provision does not remain and the balance-sheet only carries the amount of loans and advances or debtors, net of such provision made by the assessee for the impugned bad/doubtful debt. It is also held that it is not necessary to square up each individual account. A provision for doubtful debt such presented in accounted would be regarded as an allowable expenditure u/s 37(1)(vii) - See case of Bank of India [2012 (9) TMI 790 - ITAT, MUMBAI] DR has refuted the said contention but the issue has already been settled in the above mentioned case. However, the CIT(A) has allowed the doubtful debts but declined the claim of doubtful advances on the ground of that the assessee is not in the banking business. The claim has wrongly been declined, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee.
|