TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, we restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer who shall examine the claim of assessee afresh in accordance with law after providing assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Regarding the amount written off paid to Federal Express India (P) Ltd. towards courier charges, we do not find a valid reason for not allowing such write off when such expenses were incurred for business of the assessee which is not in dispute. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance Disallowance of deposits written off - business loss or bad debts -Held that:- Security deposit which was written off by the assessee should be allowed as business loss. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. See ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of ₹ 34,750/- observing that the assessee could not explain why this amount was written off in the books of account and no details were furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also disallowed ₹ 6,51,852/- which was written off by the assessee observing that this is not a bad debt to be allowed as this amount represents only advance deposit given by the assessee to the lessor of the premises taken on lease, therefore, not allowable as bad debt. On appeal, CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Insofar as addition of ₹ 34,750/- is concerned, the CIT(A) rejected the details filed before him by the assessee observing that there is no reason for not filing these details before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, it can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as these amounts could not be adjusted, these were written off in the books of account and claimed as deduction. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that these amounts if not allowed u/s 36 of the Act, it should be allowed u/s 37 of the Act as revenue loss. The learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the submissions made before the CIT(A), submits that it was claimed before the CIT(A) that it should be allowed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee further in support of the above contentions placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Fab India Overseas P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 199 672/Del/2012 dated 28.6.2013, especially para 20 and submitted that in that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... double taxation. Thus, we restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer who shall examine the claim of assessee afresh in accordance with law after providing assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Regarding the amount written off of ₹ 4,499/- paid to Federal Express India (P) Ltd. towards courier charges, we do not find a valid reason for not allowing such write off when such expenses were incurred for business of the assessee which is not in dispute. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of ₹ 4,499/-. 7. With regard to the deposits written off of ₹ 6,51,852/-, which was given to the lessors towards rental deposit, we find that almost an identical issue has been considered by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. We do not agree with this finding. There is no enduring benefit to the assessee. In our view the loss in question is in the revenue field and has been rightly claimed u/s 28. This is not a bad debt. It is not a case where lease premium is paid for a long term lease as in the case of Kribco (supra). It is a deposit in the usual course of taking show rooms on lease. 19. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Khaitan Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. 326 ITR 114 has held as follows. We agree with the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the assessee had wrongly claimed it as a bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) of the said Act. However, we find that the Tribunal has examined the matter in the correct light and allowed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apital expenditure in relation to the payer. The fact that a certain payment constitutes income or capital receipt in the hands of the recipient is not material in determining whether the payment is revenue or capital disbursement qua the payer. (ii) There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
