TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,020/- i.e. the contribution to the Employees’ PF and ESCI, which has been deposited before the due date of filing the return of income - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of Bad debts u/s 2(24) (x) read with Section 36(va) - Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT ) has laid down the proposition that where the assessee is of the view that the debt had become irrecoverable, it was enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. Undoubtedly, it is the bad debt written off, which are allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the onus was upon the assessee to prove that the debts can no longer be collected and need to be written off. The CIT(A) was also of the view that only the debts which had become bad had to be written off. We find no merit in the observations of the authorities below in this regard. The year under appeal before us is assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has written off the sundry balances which were outstanding since financial year 2000-01, totaling ₹ 12,30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) For that the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts in disallowing a sum of ₹ 4,15,020.00 (Rs. Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand Twenty Only) U / s. 2(24) (x) read with Section 36(va) of the Act. 2) For that the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts in disallowing a sum of ₹ 15,95,544.00 (Rs. Fifteen Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four Only) for Bad Debts U/s.36(1)(vii) in view of the facts circumstances of the case no such disallowance was at all called for, without prejudice and in any case the disallowance is not as per law. 3) For that the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts in disallowing a sum of ₹ 1,12,400.00 (One Lac Twelve Thousand Four Hundred Only) for Travelling Conveyance Expenses in view of the facts circumstances of the case no such disallowance was at all called for, without prejudice and in any case the disallowance is not as per law. 4) For that the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts in disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Employees PF for March, 2008 amounting to ₹ 1,96,794/- was due to be deposited by 20.04.2008, but was deposited by 29.04.2008, hence, the delay in making the aforesaid contribution is period of 7 and 9 days, respectively. In respect of Employees ESIC contribution for the month of December, 2007, sum of ₹ 1,452/- had to be contributed and the due date was 15.01.2008 and was paid on 06.08.2008. Admittedly, all these amounts have been paid before the due date of filing the return of income. In this regard, we place reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Alom Extrusions Limited reported in 319 ITR 306 (SC) and following the said ratio, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction of ₹ 4,15,020/- i.e. the contribution to the Employees PF and ESCI, which has been deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. Accordingly, we delete the addition of ₹ 4,15,020/-. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed. 10. The issue in ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is against the disallowance of ₹ 15,95,544/-, which was claimed as bad debts under section 36 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the Hon ble Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) had laid down the proposition that it was not necessary for the tax payer to establish that the debt infact had become irrecoverable, it was enough if the bad debt was written off as irrecoverable in the books of account. 15. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the order of CIT(A). 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee vide the present ground of appeal has challenged the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to ₹ 15,95,544/-. The perusal of the details filed by the assessee before the authorities below reflect that the assessee had written off certain bad debts and sundry balances outstanding for the past several years, since the said amounts could not be recovered from the respective parties, despite various efforts of the assessee. The Hon ble Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) has laid down the proposition that where the assessee is of the view that the debt had become irrecoverab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad paid fringe benefits on conveyance, tours and travels and running and maintenance of motor car and therefore, no personal element in the said expenditure, was not accepted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) on perusal of details was of the view that there was no justification for the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer out of these expenditure, but he held that the only area where the assessee could not adequately justify the nature of expenditure pertained to vehicles, which was claimed as ₹ 11,24,461/-. The CIT(A) noted that since the details were not apparently maintained and produced for verification, it could not be concluded that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of business irrespective of the contention of the assessee that such expenditure was subjected to FBT. Accordingly, 10% of the said expenditure was disallowed in the hands of the assessee amounting to ₹ 1,12,400/-. 20. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) and pointed out that there is no merit in the aforesaid disallowance in the hands of assessee company. 21. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of authorizes below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
