TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the object of the assessee. - assessee has no obligation to give a demonstrative proof that the dues have become actually bad. - there is a possibility that these patients may be related to some of the trustees, there is no instance or material available on record to suggest any specific allegation - Claim of bad debt allowed - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 958/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2014 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri Sanjay Nath Adv. For The Respondent : Smt. Renuka Jain Gupta Sr. DR ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M:: This is assessee s appeal against the consolidated order of CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi dated 2-1-2013 relating to A.Y. 2009-10. Sole issue raisedis in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 2.1. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal, wherein the CIT(A) called for a remand report in which the assessing officer accepted the following position: After considering the above submission of the assessee it can be said that the Persons/ patients to whom the treatment was given are not verifiable. Further, in absence of details and efforts of the assessee to recover the outstanding bills, the undersigned do not find in position to allow bad debts of ₹ 5,86,052/-. So out of the total bad debts claim of ₹ 20,19,250/-, an amount of ₹ 5,86,052/- remains unverified. The contention of the assessee that the bad debts can t be verified at this stage, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s thus requested that the addition of ₹ 5,86,052/- proposed by the AO is not justified either in law or in facts of the case. Therefore, this addition does not deserve to be retained and may kindly be dropped. 2.3. CIT(A), however, upheld the addition by following observations: 6. Ground No 1(c) pertains to Bad Debts written off amounting to ₹ 20,19,950/-. In this regard vide Para 3 of the Remand Report dated 16.11.2012 AO has worked out that a sum of ₹ 5,86,052/- relates to bills raised on private parties but which could not be recovered from them. So, he has observed that persons could be specified persons of the Trust which attract provisions of Sec. 13 of the IT Act. In this regard reply has been filed vide let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As violation has been noted u/s. 13 of the IT Act by AO, which has been upheld, ground No.2 of the appeal is dismissed. 2.4. Aggrieved, assessee is before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that it has not been disputed that the assessee carries on a charitable hospital for the purpose of relief to blind persons. For treatment, patients from various parts of country come, at times due to prolonged treatment poverty or difficulties, some of the bills payable by them to hospital over run their means. As per government regulations, a patient cannot be detained in hospital in case of non-payment or deficient payment of medical bill. The patients got discharged and undertook to repay the balance dues. Being a charitable hospital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otected inasmuch as if any recovery in this behalf is made in subsequent years the same will be credited to the income as per the provisions of the Act. 3.2. Apropos the second assumption that there may be possibility of violation of sec. 13, it is pleaded that in the assessment order the assessing officer ha not even whispered about this aspect and it is only in the remand report that by a last line the assessing officer has raised a doubt about possibility of violation of sec. 13. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that when the assessing officer did not raise this question in the original proceedings there was no justification on his part to rack up the issue in remand proceedings. Besides, ld. CIT(A) also has not put forth any coge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
