TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .19 lacs as bad debts. In other words, when a conscious decision is taken on consideration of the various factors that particular amount has become unrecoverable that is sufficient enough to write off the same as bad debt even though for some reason it may subsequently be recovered. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the tribunal has taken a very casual approach in dismissing the appeal of the assessee appeal on the above score by refusing to allow deduction under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the above question in favour of the assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 332 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2017 - Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ. For the Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly the same were written off for the financial year 2009-10. The deduction claimed to the above effect by the appellant assessee has been disallowed by the tribunal on the ground that it has not been properly written off in the books of accounts of the appellant assessee. The appellant assessee before the CIT (Appeals) had placed the entire accounting procedure and even the documents to establish that the customers have deducted the aforesaid amount on account of liquidated damages but this aspect was not considered and dealt with by the tribunal. The appeal raises a single question of law as to whether the tribunal is justified in denying deduction to the appellant assesee under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act and its order is vit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the financial year 2009-10 has actually written off the amount of ₹ 4520.19 lacs as bad debts. In other words, when a conscious decision is taken on consideration of the various factors that particular amount has become unrecoverable that is sufficient enough to write off the same as bad debt even though for some reason it may subsequently be recovered. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the tribunal has taken a very casual approach in dismissing the appeal of the assessee appeal on the above score by refusing to allow deduction under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the above question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and set aside the order of the tribunal dated 28.7.2016 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
