TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e balance amount of ₹ 32,18,105/- (Rs. 54,68,105 - 22,50,000) in terms of the aforesaid arbitration award was not recoverable and was therefore written off. Before us, no material has been placed on record by Revenue to controvert the findings of ld. A.R nor has demonstrated that the Assessee has received extra than the award amount. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the deduction of the amount claimed by the Assessee cannot be disallowed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1923 & 2053/AHD/2011 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2015 - G. C. Gupta VP And Anil Chaturvedi, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Roop Chand, Sr DR For the Respondent : Smt Urvashi Sodhan, AR ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A. M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) of the Act ignoring the fact that the appellant has furnished all the relevant details and accounts in respect of less money received in terms of arbitration award in the suit filed in Arbitral Tribunal. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have allowed total claim of the appellant. 5. Since the grounds raised by Revenue and Assessee are interconnected, both the appeals are considered together. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O noticed that Assessee had debited ₹ 37,75,920/- as bad debts. The Assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of bad debts to which Assessee interalia submitted that out of the total bad debts ₹ 32,18,105/- represents less money received in terms of arbitration award under the suit filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; balance of debtors has been reduced by the amount of bad debts and the said bad debts have been written off by charging to the Profit and Loss account as irrecoverable. This is in line with the requirement of sec. 36(1)(vii) r.w. sec. 36(2) of the IT Act as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TRF Ltd vs CIT 323 ITR 397 (SC). This position had not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel had relied1 upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. 320 ITR 178 (Del.) and CIT vs DB (India) Securities Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 26 and on the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia 40 SOT 432 (Mum.)(SB) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DB (India) Securities Ltd. and Shreyas S. Morakhia and the finding of my predecessor in appellant's own case for the A.Y. 2007-08, the claim of bad debts of ₹ 5,57,815/- is allowed and the addition to this extent is deleted. As regards the other claim of Rs. ₹ 32,18,105/-, I have gone through the decisions of the Arbitrator in the cases of Shri Jitendrakumar Gupta and Smt. Rekha Jitendra Gupta. In the case of Shri Jitendrakumar Gupta, the claim of ₹ 30,07,773/- was made. The award was declared for ₹ 22,50,000/- as per the conditions laid down in the arbitration award. The appellant had even received ₹ 12,50;000 on 26.06.2008 before declaration of the award.lt was specifically stipulated in the award order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are now in appeal before us. 8. Before us, ld. A.R. submitted that the total debts due comprised of ₹ 30,07,773/- from Jitendra Gupta and ₹ 24,60,332(aggregating to ₹ 54.71 lacs). Against the total claim of ₹ 54.71 lacs, vide arbitration award no. MCX/Legal/127A/08 order dated 21.07.2008, Assessee was awarded ₹ 22,50,000/- in full satisfaction of the Assessee s claim and therefore the balance debt of ₹ 32.21 lacs (Rs. 54.71 lacs - ₹ 22.50 lacs) along with debts dues from other parties aggregating to ₹ 37 lacs was written off. She pointed to the copy of the arbitration award placed at page 1 to 5 of the paper book and pointed out that ld. CIT(A) has erroneously considered the award of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
