Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 377 - AT - Income TaxAddition of Bad and Doubtful Debts Reserve (BDDR) for earlier years written back in the year under consideration - assessee is a Co-operative Society conducts its banking business - assessee submitted that there was excess provision for earlier year and made reversal in the year under consideration - As contended that such amount should not be added in the computation of income as there was no deduction claimed at the time of creation of BDDR provision in the earlier year - HELD THAT:- The assessee shown profit of ₹ 6,73,27,193/- in the computation of total income as net profit which is inclusive of ₹ 8,54,42,557/- and reversed the same amount, meaning thereby that the assessee claimed no deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts made in the year under consideration nor offered any income on account of written back of the said provision for bad and doubtful debts for the earlier year in the computation of total income. Thus, when there is no deduction claimed in the computation of total income on account of BDDR and its reversal in subsequent year i.e. involving present A.Y. 2014-15 under consideration does not warrant any addition, meaning no tax on the reversal of BDDR in the subsequent year. A similar issue on same identical facts, the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee‟s own case [2020 (10) TMI 658 - ITAT PUNE] whether it is case of the period when the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s.80P or thereafter when the benefit of section 36(1)(viia) came to be conferred, the creation of BDDR and its simultaneous addition in the computation of total income has made it clear that, in fact, no deduction was claimed by the assessee in this regard. Once the assessee did not claim any deduction in respect of BDDR, there can be no question of taxing the reversal of BDDR in a subsequent year, as has been the case under consideration. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order on this score and hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
|