TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income to make such a claim - assessee not only made the claim for allowance of additional amount but has also an application under rule 29 for admission of additional evidence. During the course of assessment proceedings on July 10, 2006, submitted that the correct claim and the wrong claim was due to the fact that the figure was taken net of the provisions - an amount has been used against the provision for bad debts made during the financial year 2001-02 and been written back - said provision has been reversed on account of which the bad debt figure has come down but whereas, the correct figure of bad debt claimed. HELD THAT:- We hold that the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. makes it cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marketing of bulk drugs formulations. It filed its return of income on October 31, 2004, declaring total income of Rs. 24,57,20,103. The Assessing Officer initially processed the return under section 143(1) and thereafter completed the assessment under section 143(3) on November 30, 2006. He assessed the total income of Rs. 24,73,96,400. The assessee had made an additional claim of deduction for bad debts on the ground that a clerical/ arithmetical error occurred in the return filed by the assessee. The assessee submitted that there was a short claim of bad debts to the tune of Rs. 12,83,044. The assessee filed the letter dated July 24, 2006 during the course of assessment proceedings and requested that the amount of bad debts be allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llected except by authority of law in terms of article 265 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in merely relying on the hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 while confirming the aforesaid disallowance of appellant's claim of bad debts to the extent of reversal of the provision of Rs. 12,83,044 for bad debts already disallowed in the assessment year 2002-03. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that `. . . and I find that the Assessing Officer is justified in not allowing the claim of bad debts as the assessee has not filed any revised return.' 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to allow a deduction suo motu even if not claimed by the assessee : (i) CBDT Circular No. 14 (XL-35) of 1955 dated April 11, 1955 ; (ii) Dattatraya Gopal Shette v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 460 (Bom) ; (iii) Chokshi Metal Refinery v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 63 (Guj) ; (iv) CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom) (affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mahendra Mills [2000] 243 ITR 56 (SC)) ; (v) CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [1986] 160 ITR 920 (SC) ; and (vi) CIT v. Cosmic Eng. Co. [1984] 20 TTJ (Ahd.) 271, 273. Alternatively, he submitted that he is making a fresh claim for this deduction before the Tribunal and that the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding on all and that the same should be applied. Rival contentions heard. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of papers on record and orders of the authorities below as well as the case law cited, we hold as follows. The assessee in this case had in the original return of income filed and made a claim of Rs. 37,90,949 as bad debts. Later, he filed a letter dated July 24, 2006, during the course of assessment proceedings on July 10, 2006 wherein, it was submitted that the correct claim was Rs. 51,03,315 and the wrong claim was due to the fact that the figure was taken net of the provisions. It was pointed out that an amount of Rs. 12,83,044 has been used against the provision for bad debts mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court in the cases of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 as well as case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688. Thus, this alternative argument of the assessee is allowed. Coming to the merits of the case, as neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), had considered the issue on the merits, we set aside the issue to the files of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall consider the additional claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 12,83,044 on account of bad debts which has been admitted by us and dispose of the same denovo after giving reasonable adequate opportunity. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
