2025 (7) TMI 454 - HC - Income Tax

Rejecting the claim for allowance of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) r/w Section 36(2) - as noticed by AO that the appellant had claimed Rs. 10, 50, 000/- as amount written off unrealizable - HELD THAT - As per provisions of Section 36(2) of the IT Act no deduction for a bad debt or part thereof shall be allowed unless such debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year or represents money lent in the ordinary course of the business of banking or money lending which is carried on by the assessee. As per the record the amount claimed as bad debt was never taken into account in computing income of the appellant in any other previous years. Neither it is part of the sales nor it is part of the debtors during the year or any previous year. It is evident from the record that this amount is part of loan which the appellant had given during earlier years and which has become irrecoverable during the AY 2004-05. The appellant was receiving interest income on such loans given. IT Act clearly mentions that bad debt can represent money lent in the ordinary course of business of the banking or money lending. Admittedly the appellant is not in the business of money lending. Though in the reply filed before the AO the appellant submitted that it had been into money lending business for a long time whereas this seems to be a sudden claim by stating that it is engaged in money lending business. Since in its Auditor s Report in Form 3CD the appellant clearly mentioned that it is engaged in Manufacturing of Electric Stablizers and Rectifiers . There is no mention of money lending business in the Assessment Year 2004-05 or in any of the previous years. Appellant himself has shown the interest as income from other sources in the computation of income. Had the appellant been in the business of money lending this income would have been reflected as business income . As per books of accounts which were produced before the Assessing Officer the same reveals that no separate books of accounts for the business of money lending were being maintained whereas certain transactions of money lending were incorporated which shows that the appellant was not into a regular business of money lending and used to lend money out of its surplus capital from time to time. This would not amount to or named as into the money lending business . The appellant claimed that since the only requirement of allowability of bad debts under Section 36(2)(i) is of deductions to be written off irrecoverable therefore it should be allowed whereas u/s 36(2)(i) it has been specifically mentioned that bad debt can be allowed if the written off amount which was already shown in any previous year. This bad debt was a loan given by the appellant not engaged in money lending business which was never reflected as part of the income of the appellant. Therefore despite being written off this amount was not allowed as a bad debt during the AY 2004-05. The appellant in its statement of facts has categorically admitted that in the computation of income income by way of interest on money lending was being shown and assessed under the head other source whereas the same was to be accessible under the head income from business . Therefore the amount written off unrealized was rightly disallowed by the AO-cum-ACIT Circle-I Ludhiana. Decided against assessee.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Court considered the following core legal questions:

(i) Whether the rejection of the claim for allowance of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) was justified, specifically whether the amount written off could be treated as a revenue item or as a capital loss, without considering the applicability of Section 41(1) relating to charging to tax any recovery made subsequently.

(ii) Whether the rejection of the claim for allowable expenditure under Section 37 read with Section 57(iii) of the IT Act was justified, treating the claim as a revenue expenditure, again without considering the stand of charging to tax recovery under Section 41(1).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Allowance of Bad Debts under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 36(1)(vii) allows deduction of bad debts or part thereof written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year, subject to conditions in Section 36(2). Section 36(2)(i) specifically requires that no deduction for bad debt shall be allowed unless the debt has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee in the previous year in which it is written off or an earlier year, or it represents money lent in the ordinary course of banking or money-lending business carried on by the assessee.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the appellant had claimed Rs. 10,50,000 as amount written off as unrealizable loans advanced to various parties. However, this amount was never taken into account in computing the appellant's income in any previous year. The appellant had shown interest income from these loans under the head "Income from other sources" rather than business income. The appellant was engaged in manufacturing electric stabilizers and rectifiers and was not in the business of money lending. The Court emphasized that the bad debt deduction is permissible only if the debt was part of business income or money lending business income previously recognized.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's books of account and Auditor's Report (Form 3CD) consistently described the business as manufacturing, with no mention of money lending. Interest income was declared under "Income from other sources." There was no separate business of money lending, and loans were advanced from surplus capital. The appellant failed to establish that the loans were part of a money lending business or that the amounts written off were previously included in income.

Application of law to facts: Since the loans were not part of business income or money lending business income, and the amount written off was not previously taken into account in computing income, the deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) was not allowable. The appellant's attempt to classify the write-off as a bad debt deduction was therefore rejected.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant contended that the loans and advances were part of legitimate commercial activity and should be allowed as bad debts. The Court rejected this, noting that mere lending of money from surplus capital without a business of money lending does not qualify for bad debt deduction under Section 36(2). The appellant's post hoc claim of being engaged in money lending was not supported by the record.

Conclusion: The claim for deduction of Rs. 10,50,000 as bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal and the Court.

Issue 2: Allowance of Expenditure under Section 37 read with Section 57(iii)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Income under the head "Income from other sources" is governed by Sections 56 to 59 of the IT Act. Section 57(iii) allows deduction of any expenditure (not being capital expenditure) incurred wholly and exclusively for earning such income.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant declared interest income from loans under "Income from other sources." Under Section 57(iii), only revenue expenses incurred for earning such income are deductible. Capital expenditure is explicitly excluded from deduction. The appellant sought to write off the principal amounts advanced as a deduction, which the Court held to be capital outflow and not an allowable deduction under Section 57(iii).

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's accounts showed interest income from unsecured loans, but no business income from money lending. The amounts written off were principal sums advanced and not expenses incurred in earning the interest income. The loans were not part of a business activity and no separate books of accounts for money lending were maintained.

Application of law to facts: Since the appellant's income from interest was treated as income from other sources, only revenue expenses related to earning that income could be deducted. The principal amount written off is capital in nature and cannot be deducted under Section 57(iii).

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the write-off was necessary for commercial expediency and should be allowed as expenditure. The Court rejected this, holding that capital expenditure or capital loss is not deductible under Section 57(iii) when income is under "other sources."

Conclusion: The claim for deduction of the written-off amount as an allowable expenditure under Section 37 read with Section 57(iii) was rightly rejected.

Additional Observations:

The Court also noted that the appellant's attempt to treat the write-off as a capital loss was considered and rejected by the Tribunal. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contention that the recovery of the amount should be charged to tax under Section 41(1), as the basic condition for claiming deduction was not fulfilled.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The said claim of the assessee is not maintainable as firstly the said amount is to be offered as income from business and deduction is to be allowed of an amount written off which has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the said amount has been so written off or in any of the previous year/s. Admittedly, the assessee has only shown the interest income arising on the advances made by it as its income and the capital advanced by the assessee is a capital outflow and has not been recognized as receipt/ income in its hands in the earlier years or even in the year under consideration."

"The assessee is entitled to any expenditure incurred by it in relation to the interest income earned by it on the amounts advanced in view of the provisions of Section 57(iii) of the Act and no capital outflow is to be allowed as a deduction, while computing the income in the hands of the assessee under the head income from other sources."

"In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we find no merit in the claim of the assessee vis-`a-vis of the claim of deduction of Rs. 10,50,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed."

Core principles established include:

• Deduction of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) is permissible only if the debt was previously taken into account in computing income or arises from money lending business carried on by the assessee.
• Interest income declared under "Income from other sources" permits deduction only of revenue expenditure under Section 57(iii), and capital outflows such as principal amounts written off are not deductible.
• Loans advanced from surplus capital, not forming part of a money lending business, do not qualify for bad debt deduction.
• The classification of income and expenditure heads is critical in determining allowable deductions under the IT Act.

Final determinations on each issue were against the appellant, with the Court upholding the disallowance of the Rs. 10,50,000 write-off both as bad debts and as allowable expenditure under the relevant provisions of the IT Act.