TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and repairs by capitalizing the same during the year under consideration. Addition confirmed by the CIT(A) under the head of Miscellaneous Receivables or Suppressed Sales, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer as the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the said ground and therefore to verify the claim of the assessee that average profit rate is to be adopted on such Suppressed Sales. The Tribunal also noted that the Departmental Representative was also on agreement for a remand to the Assessing Officer for correct verification. Such findings arrived at by the Tribunal by remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omers, relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court, without appreciating the fact that the facts of the case in hand and M/s. TRF Limited are distinguishable? 2.1 The following substantial questions of law are raised in Tax Appeal No. 497 of 2023 arising out of ITA No. 3591/Ahd/2015. (A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in remanding the issue of addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- admitted and declared by the assessee during course of survey as renovation and repair expenditure as undisclosed income, to file of Assessing Officer for verification of expenses claimed, capitalized and to allow appropriate depreciation in accordance with law, by accepting the alternate p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he course of survey, an amount of Rs. 17 crores pertained to the said assessment year. The amount of Rs. 17 crores comprises of repair expenses of Rs. 2.5 crores, miscellaneous receivables of Rs. 1.5 crores and inflation/bogus expenditure under the head salary and wages of Rs. 13 crores. The assessee in the return of income however did not offer renovation and repair expenses in miscellaneous receivables amounting to Rs. 2.5 crores and Rs. 1.5 crores respectively on the ground that the same are included in the undisclosed income of Rs. 13 crore offered by the assessee. Thus, sum of Rs. 4 crores represent application of undisclosed income. Since undisclosed income has already been offered to tax, again taxing sum of Rs. 4 crores being applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who confirmed the addition of Rs. 2.5 crores in respect of renovation and repair expenses and sum of Rs. 1.5 crores in respect of miscellaneous receivables, however, deleted addition of Rs. 5,92,43,933 which was added under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee and revenue therefore preferred appeals as stated hereinabove before the Tribunal challenging the order of CIT(A). 3.6 The Tribunal by the impugned order so far as confirmation of addition of Rs. 2.5 crores under the head of renovation and repair expenses by CIT(A) remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer observing as under: 8.1. Further the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bhagwandas D. Vachhani (cited supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses of Rs. 2.5 crores. 5. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly considered the alternative claim of the assessee to grant depreciation and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify such claim which the assessee has already disclosed the unaccounted expenditure towards renovation and repairs by capitalizing the same during the year under consideration. 6. With regard to the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) under the head of Miscellaneous Receivables or Suppressed Sales, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer as the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the said ground and therefore to verify the claim of the assessee that average profit rate is to be adopted on such Suppressed Sales. The Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for in the current year also can be claimed as a bad debt. Once the deduction made by the clients account is debited and the clients' accounts are credited, the conditions laid down by these sections are fulfilled and such amounts are allowable as a bad debt in the computation of total income. The appellant is not required to establish that such debts have actually become bad before writing off the same in its books of accounts. Accordingly the AO is not correct in making ad hoc disallowance out of the deductions made by the clients during the current year itself. The appellant's explanation are legally and factually correct and hence the disallowances made by the AO are directed to be deleted and both of these grounds of appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
