9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 349 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of Bad debts - Lease rentals receivable - Security deposit Outstanding - HELD THAT - According to the learned counsel the deposit received is not against the lease rental but it is a security connected with the purchase costing Rs. 41, 86, 000. It is further seen from the written submission given by the assessee before the CIT(A) that the cheques issued by M/s. Sarigram Steels Ltd. were dishonoured and the matter was pending before the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jethabhai Hirji Jethabhai Ramdas 1977 (11) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Thus we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT(A) that the debt had not become prima facie bad is to be rejected. Now coming to the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Oman International Bank SAOG 2006 (5) TMI 117 - ITAT BOMBAY-H majority held that once the assessee has written off the debt as bad the revenue cannot any more demand a demonstrative proof to establish that the debt has actually become bad. On the contrary it is for the revenue to establish that the debt has not become bad. In the instant case of the assessee the learned DR s contention is that the assessee is in possession of Rs. 16, 48, 000 received from the same party as a deposit. According to the assessee this amount is against the goods leased to M/s. Sarigram Steels Ltd. therefore it is not possible to adjust the amount against the lease rent. This argument of the assessee cannot be faulted with. Thus we are of the view that the write off by the assessee is to be accepted and the stand of the revenue that the amount should have been utilised against the deposit has no merit. Hence this ground of appeal by the assessee is allowed. In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on assets purchased by the assessee. 2. Disallowance of bad debts claimed in respect of lease rentals receivable from M/s. Sarigram Steels Ltd. 3. Disallowance of bad debts claimed in respect of bills discounted recoverable from M/s. Dharnendra Industries Ltd. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Purchased by the Assessee: The first issue concerns the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 4,17,107 on assets purchased by the assessee. The assessee, a finance company, had filed its return declaring a loss. The depreciation claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on the findings from the previous assessment year (1997-98), where it was concluded that the assets did not exist. The matter was escalated to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1997-98, remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to ascertain the interest element in the lease rental receipts and adjust the principal amount from the taxable income. This ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. 2. Disallowance of Bad Debts Claimed in Respect of Lease Rentals Receivable from M/s. Sarigram Steels Ltd.: The second issue involved the disallowance of Rs. 12,45,147 claimed as bad debts for lease rentals receivable from M/s. Sarigram Steels Ltd. The AO disallowed the claim, noting that the assessee had a security deposit of Rs. 16,48,000 from the lessee, which could have been adjusted against the lease rental. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the recovery had not become genuinely bad, as the security deposit exceeded the outstanding lease rental. The Tribunal, however, found that the security deposit was against the leased asset and not specifically for the lease rental. The Tribunal also noted that the cheques issued by M/s. Sarigram Steels Ltd. were dishonored, and the matter was pending in the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s finding and allowed the assessee's claim for bad debts. 3. Disallowance of Bad Debts Claimed in Respect of Bills Discounted Recoverable from M/s. Dharnendra Industries Ltd.: The third issue pertained to the disallowance of Rs. 18,68,890 claimed as bad debts in respect of bills discounted recoverable from M/s. Dharnendra Industries Ltd. The AO disallowed the claim, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, noting that there were steady recoveries in the subsequent years and that the debt had not genuinely become bad. The CIT(A) emphasized that for a debt to be considered bad, it must be genuinely irrecoverable, and mere delays in recovery do not suffice. The Tribunal, however, sided with the assessee, referencing the Special Bench decision in the case of Oman International Bank SAOG, which held that it is not obligatory for the assessee to prove that the debt has become bad for the purpose of allowance under section 36(1)(vii). The Tribunal concluded that the write-off by the assessee was a prima facie evidence of the debt becoming bad, and the revenue could not demand further demonstrative proof. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for bad debts. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on all grounds for statistical purposes, remanding the depreciation issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication and accepting the assessee's claims for bad debts based on the principle that the write-off in the books of accounts serves as prima facie evidence of the debt becoming bad.
|
