TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, claim for debt or part thereof in any previous year shall be admissible u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of account of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions of stipulated in sub-section 2 of section 36(2) CIT (A) has specifically mentioned that it is not the case of revenue that any of the conditions either u/s 36(1)(vii) or section 36(2) of the Act are not fulfilled by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee has written off the bad debts in its books of account. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) to interfere with the same. Hence, we dismiss the sole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of bad debt on account of Bad Debt- NSEL of ₹ 2,26,58,328/- without appreciating the fact that the claims were premature as final deficiencies in amount could not be arrived at as contemplated u/s 36(2)(ii) of the Act. 2. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the decision of the CIT (A) may be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 4. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the assessment order passed by the AO submitted that since in the present case the claim of bad debt is premature, the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The Ld. DR further submitted that since the Ld. CIT (A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the case laws relied upon by the Ld. CIT (A). The only grievance of the revenue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition holding as under:- 5.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, oral contentions and written submission of the assessee, discussion of the AO in the assessment order and material available on record. It is a fact submitted by the assessee that trading at NSEL was halted as on July, 2013 and the assessee claimed bad debt amounting at 35% of the total amount receivable from brokers as on 31.03.2014. Further, as per the press report on the NSEL case published on 14.03.2017, the Bombay High Court has decided not to disburse t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F, Ltd V/s CIT, Ranchi dated Feb 9, 2010 (Civil Appeal No. 5293/5294 of 2003) as also on the CBDT Circular No. 12/2016 dated May 30th, 2006 to support its claim of allowability of bad debts written off. In the decision of Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd V/s CIT. Ranchi (supra), it has been held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. The Hon ble Court have observed that it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. The CBDT in their Circular No. 12/2016 dated 30.05.2016 with reference to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
