TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to discharge of the contract, on account of failure of the assessee himself to honour the contract, there can be no reason to expect the assessee to pursue any remedy or recourse under law to either get the article delivered or the amounts refunded. There was no other recourse to the assessee then to consider the advances as non-recoverable and treat them as expenses while writing them off. In the light of aforesaid discussion of facts and circumstances and relying on the judgment in T.R.F. Ltd. Case [ 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] as there is no necessity to establish that the debt has in fact become irrecoverable, the findings of ld. First Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No.4015/Del/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer for AY 2014-2015 the Appellant preferred the appeal before CIT(A). In appeal the CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 66,45,934/- observing that absence of any dispute and / or of legal recourse, writing off the advances in short period of time and appellant s omission to furnish cogent explanation in this regard leads me to a firm basis to infer that advances written off amounting to ₹ 66,45,934/- is not allowable. Accordingly addition of ₹ 66,45,934/- made by A.O. is confirmed . However allowed credit of TDS of ₹ 1,01,950/-. 4. Now before the Tribunal the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the Learned Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders for a particular project namely Shadara Kempinski Hotel and certain vendors were identified and for certain articles advances were paid however, the project was abandoned and vendors to whom advances were paid refused to repay the advance amounts and the same was written off from the accounts and treated as business expense in accordance with the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act. He relied the judgment of Delhi High Court in (i) Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi [2011] 11 taxmann.com 141 (Delhi HC), (ii) CIT vs. Samara India (P.) Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 79 (Delhi) , (iii) Minda (HUF) Ltd. v. JCIT [2006] 101 ITD 191 (Delhi Trib.), (iv) ACIT vs. Set India (P) Ltd. [2010] 3 ITR (Trib.) 454 (MUM), (v) Vijayas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required. That is how justification to treat the advances as non-returnable is claimed. 7.1 The Bench is of considered view that when advance is paid to prospective vendors and the same is forfeited due to discharge of the contract, on account of failure of the assessee himself to honour the contract, there can be no reason to expect the assessee to pursue any remedy or recourse under law to either get the article delivered or the amounts refunded. There was no other recourse to the assessee then to consider the advances as non-recoverable and treat them as expenses while writing them off. In the light of aforesaid discussion of facts and circumstances and relying on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court of India in T.R.F. Ltd. Case (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
