TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as respectfully following the orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal as well as decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. - ITA No. 1244/JP/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2021 - SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , JM And SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , AM Revenue by : Shri A. S. Nehra ( Addl. CIT ) Assessee by : Shri Sanjiv Kumar Mathur, ( CA ) Shri Satish Ajmera (CA) ORDER PER : SANDEEP GOSAIN , J. M. This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 23/08/2019 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The hearing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad debt. The assessee has not produced details of credit balance of provision of bad debt after set off of bad debt of relevant year. 6. On the contrary, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also submitted that in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2006-07, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-14, similar issues were decided by the Tribunal in assessee s favour. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. From perusal of the record, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in 2.3 to 2.3.2 of her order and the same is reproduced below: 2.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial corporations as the accounts are not maintained as per Schedule-VI of the Companies Act. 17. We have heard the Id. D/R as well as the Id. A/R of the assessee and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that an identical issue was decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years vide decision dated 6th July, 2017 in DBIT Appeal Nos. 593/2008, 552/2009, 157/2010 and 261/2016. The Hon'ble High Court in assessee's own case after considering a series of decisions on this issue has held in para 9 to 11 as under :- 9. We have heard counsel for both the sides. 10. Before proceeding with the matter, the question of law whch has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A read with Section 2(18)(a). On a plain reading as reproduced above and in view of forgoing conclusion and even as per statement of Mr. Mathur, it will not be covered. However, he has tried to take support of Section 43 which is misconceived. While interpreting the taxing statute, the Court has to rely upon the taxing statute and not any other provisions. 11. In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee against the department. The ld AR has drawn our attention towards the fact that against the order of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court, the Revenue has preferred SLPs before the Hon ble Supreme Court but till date no order/judgment is being passed. 9. We also observed that the ld. CIT(A) has given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
