Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 190 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of bad debt - as per assessee claim of bad debt for the A.Y. 2011-12 has been allowed in similar fact and circumstances - onus to prove - HELD THAT:- The assessee does not have any direct evidence in support of his contention that these bad debts were offered to tax in the respective assessment years, but the circumstantial evidences in the form of audited financial statements cannot be neglected wherein the assessee has classified such bad debts as the debtors. In this connection we draw support and guidance from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT[1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] We are also not oblivion to the fact that the assessee has shown such bad debts as debtors in the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 which was subject to the assessment under section 143 (3) of the Act and the revenue has accepted the same. Further the learned CIT (A) had allowed the claim of Bad debt for A.Y. 2011-12 with regard to debt pertaining to similar period. In view of the above and after considering the circumstantial evidences, we hold that such bad debts were offered to tax. Accordingly the assessee is entitled for the deduction under section 36 of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Nature of land sold - agricultural land v/s capital asset - HELD THAT:- It is the settled law that there cannot be any kind of income tax on the sale of the agricultural land. As such the income of the assessee is exempted from the tax on the sale of the agricultural land. However the onus is on the assessee to prove that the land is agricultural in nature within the meaning of the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act. However we find that the necessary details are not arising from the order of the authorities below. Accordingly, we restore the impugned issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI]
|