TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order, we notice that the A.O. has fixed a limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for this purpose and accordingly, disallowed advances exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs. Admittedly, that cannot be a criterion for making disallowance of the claim made by the assessee - AO has allowed claim in respect of a party, but disallowed similar claim made in respect of very same person only for the reason that the said advance is on higher side. This stand of the AO is also not acceptable. CIT(A) has expressed the view that the assessee has not proved before the A.O. that the attempts made by it for recovery of the amount has failed and further the debtors were not financially sound to repay the debt. We notice that the assessee has canvassed its claim as bad debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the A.O. with the direction to examine the claim of the assessee u/s. 28/37 of the Act. The assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. - ITA No. 976/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2022 - SHRI B. R. BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri Ramakrishnan , A. R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena , D. R. ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran , Accountant Member The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 22.3.2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98,50,000/- 4. Bilekalli Property 67,18,700/- 5. One Source Integrated Design Build Services Pvt. Ltd. 1,65,00,000/- 6. Niligiri Estates 1,10,08,800/- Total 7,86,78,212/- However, the A.O. allowed a sum of Rs. 1,94,34,380/-, as it represented smaller advances of less than Rs. 50.00 lakhs on the reasoning that these kind of write off is incidental to the business. 3. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon Tale Supreme Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in respect of large advances. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the AO was not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee only for the reason that the amount written off was larger amounts. 5. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee has written off a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs and another sum of Rs. 1.65 crores paid to a company named M/s. One Source Integrated Design Build Services Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. has allowed Rs. 13 lakhs but disallowed Rs. 1.65 crores. If the A.O. is accepting that the amount of Rs. 13.00 lakhs was not recovered from that company, there is no reason to hold that the other amount of Rs. 1.65 crores could be recovered by the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that the reasons given by A.O. for maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be a criterion for making disallowance of the claim made by the assessee. Further the AO has allowed claim in respect of a party, but disallowed similar claim made in respect of very same person only for the reason that the said advance is on higher side. This stand of the AO is also not acceptable. 9. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has expressed the view that the assessee has not proved before the A.O. that the attempts made by it for recovery of the amount has failed and further the debtors were not financially sound to repay the debt. We notice that the assessee has canvassed its claim as bad debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act and hence it has placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon Tale Supreme Court in the case of T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
