TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 50, 00, 000/- deserves to be rejected whether this claim is made as bad debt written off u/s 36 of the Act or alternatively u/s 37 of the Act - Decided against assessee Disallowance on account of earth filling expenses - HELD THAT:- The assessee had filed no evidences before Ld. CIT(A) to explain how the assessee claimed an amount of ₹ 12, 72, 400/- when the valuation of the boundary wall by the Stamp Valuation Authority was only for ₹ 50, 00, 000/-. Even in the appellate proceedings in ITAT, the assessee has not adduced any evidences to support the claim of having actually incurred the aforesaid expenditure amounting to ₹ 12, 72, 400/- towards cost of earth filling/boundary wall. The assessee has failed to bring any material for our consideration to justify any further relief in addition to relief of ₹ 50, 000/- already allowed by Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of the valuation of boundary wall by Stamp Valuation Authority. In the absence of any supporting evidences in support of assessee s claim of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 12, 22, 400/- [disallowance of which has been sustained by Ld. CIT(A)], we are of the view that this claim of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2014 was passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short Act ] wherein the total income was assessed at Rs . 3, 20, 49, 170/- as per following computation:- Income as shown in return : Rs . 13, 02, 090 Add: ( i) Disallowance out of bad debt : Rs . 50, 00, 000 ( ii) Disallowance of advanced received u/s 68 : Rs . 1, 34, 00, 000 ( iii) Disallowance of earth filling : Rs . 12, 72, 400 ( iv) Addition to unsecured loan : Rs . 1, 06, 41, 000 ( v) Disallowance out of vehicle runn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, Ld . AR of the assessee relied on the aforesaid particulars filed from assessee s side in ITAT . Ld . AR for the assessee drew our particular attention to paper cutting dated 04 . 03 . 2015 in support of aforesaid second ground of appeal and contended that the aforesaid loss of Rs . 50, 00, 000/- is allowable u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act as bad debt written off; and also alternatively u/s 37 of the Act as business loss . Ld . AR for the assessee placed strong reliance on the case of Minda (HUF) vs JCIT [2006] 101 ITD 191 (Del . ) . [ C . 2] . In support of all the grounds of appeal, Ld . AR for the assessee also placed strong reliance on the submissions made before Ld . CIT(A) in respect of the aforesaid disallowance of Rs . 50, 00, 000/- and Rs . 12, 22, 400/- . The relevant discussion is at the following portion of the aforesaid impugned order dated 16 . 02 . 2016 of Ld . CIT(A) reproduced hereunder:- GROUND NO . 1 Addition of Rs . 50, 00, 000 . 00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Copy of 190 Taxman 257 (SC) Page 8-12 6 . Copy of News Paper cutting Page 12A . . . . GROUND NO . 3 Addition of Rs . 12, 72, 400 . 00 That the assessee has purchased plot no 485/2 situated at Vill . Noor Nagar . Meerut on 15 . 03 . 2004 and sold on 31 . 01 . 2011 . That the facts are that when the assessee has purchased the plot it was not developed but when the plot was sold during the year it was developed and duly surrounded with boundary walls, which is evident from the purchase and sale deeds . Supporting documents 1 . Purchase deed dated 15 . 03 . 2004 Page 26-42 2 . Sale deed dated 31 . 01 . 2011 Page 43-60 [ C . 3] . Ld . CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on various dates and duly entered in the books of accounts . The assessing officer has not rejected my books of accounts and hence no addition could be made for the entries found entered in regular books of accounts of assessee and in particular when the assessing officer neither in his assessment order nor in his remand report doubted the expenditure and the books of accounts have been accepted . [ C . 4] . Ld . CIT(A) considered decided the issues as under: [ C . 5] . Ld . DR placed 16 . 02 . 2016 of Ld . CIT(A) . [ D] . We have heard both sides materials available on record judicial precedents mentioned in the records or brought to our notice at the time of hearing before us . filed five grounds of appeal, essentially there are disputes in respect of two disallowance disallowance of assessee s claim of Rs . 50 bad debt written off . During appellate proceedings, it was contended from the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for claim of bad debt . At the time of hearing before us, Ld . AR for the assessee also expressed inability to bring any further material on record in support of the assessee s claim for the aforesaid amount of Rs . 50, 00, 000/- . In the forgoing facts and circumstances, the assessee s claim for deduction of the aforesaid amount of Rs . 50, 00, 000/- deserves to be rejected whether this claim is made as bad debt written off u/s 36 of the Act or alternatively u/s 37 of the Act . In any case, in Ground No . 2 of appeal, the assessee refers to section 36(1)(viii) of the Act which is not applicable to the facts and circumstances in the case of the assessee . [ Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, is instead applicable for claims in respect of any separate reserve created and maintained by a specified entity . ] In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the assessee s claim for the aforesaid amount of Rs . 50, 00, 000/- is unsustainable in law . [ E] . As far as the aforesaid disallowance of Rs . 12, 22, 400/- on account of earth filling expenses is concerned, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
