GOLDIAM JEWELLERY LIMITED,MUMBAI V. ACIT-CC 1(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3272/MUM/2023

AI Insights

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,48,50,000 as provision for doubtful debts disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal examined whether the provision for doubtful debts claimed by the assessee was an admissible expenditure. The Tribunal referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, which clarified the conditions under which provisions for doubtful debts can be considered as actual write-offs. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had met these conditions by adjusting the provision against the debtors' accounts, thereby allowing the deduction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470830 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Shri Darshan Roadlines Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT, TRF Ltd Vs. CIT, Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT, Southern Technologies Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Vidras India Ceramics (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs D.C.I.T., CIT- vs-Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd., CIT Vs. Tainwala Chemicals & Plastics India Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAGNATH BIMRAO PASALE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JIAN; THIS
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 147; 148; 250; 13; 72

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Goldiam Jewellery Ltd G-10, Ground Floor, Gems and Jewellery Complex II, Seeps Sez, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400096. Vs. ACIT – CC 1(2) Mumbai. PAN/GIR No. AACCG3424F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prateek Jian Revenue by Shri Nagnath Bimrao Pasale सुनवाई क\u0002 तारीख/Date of Hearing 14.11.2024 घोषणा क\u0002 तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 19.07.2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (‘Ld. CIT(A)’), for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 which is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 1,48,50,000/- on account of provision for doubtful debts claimed as deduction, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in disallowing the employees contribution of PF amounting to Rs.1,96,127/-, by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing. 2. At the very outset, the Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee made statement at bar that he is not pressing Ground No. 1 and 3, consequently, considering his statement ground No. 1 and 3 stands dismissed as not pressed. 3. Now there remains only one ground for adjudication i.e Ground No. 2, wherein the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Ld.AO in making addition of Rs. 1,48,50,000/- on account of provision for doubtful debts claimed as deduction. 4. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have perused the material placed on record, judgments cited by the Ld. AR and also orders passed by the revenue authorities. 3 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai 5. From the records, we noticed that the claim of the assessee for provision for doubtful debts was disallowed by the Ld.AO by holding that it is not an admissible expenditure. The said finding was also upheld by Ld.CIT(A). On perusal of the documents placed on record, we found that from the profit and loss account, balance sheet and return of income, the assessee has in fact debited an amount of Rs. 1,48,50,000/-on account of “provision for doubtful debts” but the same was disallowed by holding that the same is not admissible expenditure as there is nothing on record to suggest that requirement of law that bad debts was written off as irrecoverable in the assessee’s accounts. 6. In order to deal with this situation, the assessee has drawn our attention to computation of income and financial statement for the year under consideration which reflects that in profit and loss account, balance sheet and return of income, shows that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 1,48,50,000/- on account of “provision for doubtful debt” and we have also gone through the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Darshan Roadlines Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 186/Mum/2017, which is based on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd Vs. CIT, [2010] 190 taxman 391 and Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT, [2010] 190 taxman 257 and the operating portion of the decision is reproduced herein below: 4 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai At the outset, we may state that, in these civil appeals, broadly, two questions arise for determination. The first question which arises for determination concerns the manner in which actual write off takes place under the Accounting principles. The second question which arises for determination in these civil appeals is, whether it is imperative for the assessee-Bank to close the individual account of each debtor in it's Books or a mere reduction in the \"Loans and Advances Account\" or Debtors to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful debt is sufficient? The first question is no more res integra. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Southern Technologies Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2010] 320 ITR 577, [in which one of us [S.H. Kapadia,J.] was a party] had an occasion to deal with the first question and it has been answered, accordingly, in favour of the assessee vide Paragraph (25), which reads as under: \"Prior to April 1, 1989, the law, as it then stood, took the view that even in cases in which the assessee(s) makes only a provision in its accounts for bad debts and interest thereon and even though the amount is not actually written off by debiting the profit and loss account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). [See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj)] Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in the accounts of the assessee. The said amendment indicates that before April 1, 1989, even a provision could be treated as a write off. However, after April 1, 1989, a distinct dichotomy is brought in by way of the said Explanation to section 36(1)(vii). Consequently, after April 1, 1989, a mere provision for bad debt would not be entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(vii). To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand `how to write off'. If an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the 5 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai profit and loss account and credits the asset account like sundry debtor's account, it would constitute a write off of an actual debt. However, if an assessee debits `provision for doubtful debt' to the profit and loss account and makes a corresponding credit to the `current liabilities and provisions' on the liabilities side of the balance-sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt. In the latter case, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction after April 1, 1989.\" One point needs to be clarified. According to Shri Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Department, the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala [supra] was prior to the insertion of the Explanation vide Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 1st April, 1989, hence, that law is no more a good law. According to the learned counsel, in view of the insertion of the said Explanation in Section 36(1)(vii) with effect from 1st April, 1989, a mere debit of the impugned amount of bad debt to the Profit and Loss Account would not amount to actual write off. According to him, the Explanation makes it very clear that there is a dichotomy between actual write off on the one hand and a provision for bad and doubtful debt on the other. He submitted that a mere debit to the Profit and Loss Account would constitute a provision for bad and doubtful debt, it would not constitute actual write off and that was the very reason why the Explanation stood inserted. According to him, prior to Finance Act, 2001, many assessees used to take the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act by merely debiting the impugned bad debt to the Profit and Loss Account and, therefore, the Parliament stepped in by way of Explanation to say that mere reduction of profits by debiting the amount to the Profit and Loss Account per se would not constitute actual write off. To this extent, we agree with the contentions of Shri Bhattacharya. However, as stated by the Tribunal, in the present case, besides debiting the Profit and Loss Account and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debt, the assessee-Bank had correspondingly/simultaneously obliterated the said provision from it's accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from Loans and Advances/debtors on the asset side of the Balance Sheet and, consequently, at the end of the year, the figure in the 6 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai loans and advances or the debtors on the asset side of the Balance Sheet was shown as net of the provision \"for impugned bad debt\". In the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala [supra], a mere debit to the Profit and Loss Account was sufficient to constitute actual write off whereas, after the Explanation, the assessee(s) is now required not only to debit the Profit and Loss Account but simultaneously also reduce loans and advances or the debtors from the asset side of the Balance Sheet to the extent of the corresponding amount so that, at the end of the year, the amount of loans and advances/debtors is shown as net of provisions for impugned bad debt. This aspect is lost sight of by the High Court in it's impugned judgement. In the circumstances, we hold, on the first question, that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in it's Books, as indicated above. Coming to the second question, we may reiterate that it is not in dispute that Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act applies both to Banking and Non-Banking businesses. The manner in which the write off is to be carried out has been explained hereinabove. It is important to note that the assessee-Bank has not only been debiting the Profit and Loss Account to the extent of the impugned bad debt, it is simultaneously reducing the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end, as stated hereinabove. In other words, the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end in the balance-sheet is shown as net of the provisions for impugned debt. However, what is being insisted upon by the Assessing Officer is that mere reduction of the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end would not suffice and, in the interest of transparency, it would be desirable for the assessee-Bank to close each and every individual account of loans and advances or debtors as a pre-condition for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. This view has been taken by the Assessing Officer because the Assessing Officer apprehended that the assessee-Bank might be taking the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act, twice over. [See Order of CIT (A) at Pages 66, 67 and 72 of the Paper Book, which refers to the apprehensions of the Assessing Officer]. In this context, it may be noted that there is no finding of the Assessing 7 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai Officer that the assessee had unauthorisedly claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), twice over. The Order of the Assessing Officer is based on an apprehension that, if the assessee fails to close each and every individual account of it's debtor, it may result in assessee claiming deduction twice over. In this case, we are concerned with the interpretation of Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. We cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehensions/desirability. It is always open to the Assessing Officer to call for details of individual debtor's account if the Assessing Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that assessee has claimed deduction, twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken in subsequent years. There is also a flip- side to the argument of the Department. Assessee has instituted recovery suits in Courts against it's debtors. If individual accounts are to be closed, then the Debtor/Defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the Bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed. Before concluding, we may refer to an argument advanced on behalf of the Department. According to the Department, it is necessary to square off each individual account failing which there is likelihood of escapement of income from assessment. According to the Department, in cases where a borrower's account is written off by debiting Profit and Loss Account and by crediting Loans and Advances or Debtors Accounts on the asset side of the Balance Sheet, then, as and when in the subsequent years if the borrower repays the loan, the assessee will credit the repaid amount to the Loans and Advances Account and not to the Profit and Loss Account which would result in escapement of income from assessment. On the other hand, if bad debt is written off by closing the borrower's account individually, then the repaid amount in subsequent years will be credited to the Profit and Loss Account on which the assessee-Bank has to pay tax. Although, prima facie, this argument of the Department appears to be valid, on a deeper consideration, it is not so for three reasons. Firstly, the Head Office Accounts clearly indicate, in the present case, that, on repayment in subsequent years, the amounts are duly offered for tax. Secondly, one has to keep in mind that, under the Accounting practice, the Accounts of the Rural Branches have to tally with the Accounts of the Head Office. If the repaid amount in 8 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai subsequent years is not credited to the Profit and Loss Account of the Head Office, which is ultimately what matters, then, there would be a mis-match between the Rural Branch Accounts and the Head Office Accounts. Lastly, in any event, Section 41(4) of 1961 Act, inter alia, lays down that, where a deduction has been allowed in respect of a bad debt or a part thereof under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act, then, if the amount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference between the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income tax as the income of the previous year in which it is recovered. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer is sufficiently empowered to tax such subsequent repayments under Section 41(4) of 1961 Act and, consequently, there is no merit in the contention that, if the assessee succeeds, then it would result in escapement of income from assessment. For the afore-stated reason, we uphold the judgement of the Tribunal dated 31st July, 2003, and set aside the impugned judgement of the High Court. Consequently, the assessee's appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs. 7. We have also gone through the another decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Ahmadabad in ITA No. 1725 & 1726/Ahd/2019 in the case of M/s. Trio Elevators Company (Ind) Ltd Vs. DCIT wherein it was held as under: 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has claimed deduction under the head provision for doubtful debts and doubtful advances by debiting the profit and loss account and simultaneously making adjustments in the sundry debtors account and advances account as reflected in the balance sheet as on 31/03/2010. This fact can be verified from the necessary details which are available in the Annual Account of the assessee, placed on pages 8 to 37 of the paper book. 9 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai 9.1 Now the controversy arises whether the assessee can claim a deduction for the provision of doubtful debts without giving adjustment in the individual ledger account of the sundry debtors. This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of Vidras India Ceramics (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs D.C.I.T. bearing ITA No. 2412/Ahd/2018 for AY 2014-15 vide order dated 09/07/2021. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: 15. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts relating to the case have already been elaborated in the preceding paragraph which are not in dispute. Therefore, we are not inclined to repeat the same for the sake of brevity and convenience. The controversy that needs to be addressed so as to whether the assessee is eligible for deduction with respect to the provisions made against the trade debtors in pursuance to the explanation 1 to clause (vii) of section 36(1) of the Act. The relevant explanation reads as under: [Explanation 1]-For the purposes of this clause, any bad debt or part thereof written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee shall not include any provision for bad and doubtful debts made in the accounts of the assessee;] 15.1 As per the above explanation there remains no ambiguity to the fact that the provisions made by the assessee with respect to the bad and doubtful debts will not be eligible for deduction. However, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya bank Vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 166 has observed that the assessee is eligible for deduction with respect to the provisions made against the debtors provided it were claimed in the profit and loss account as well as such provision was adjusted against the sundry debtors/ bad and doubtful debts as shown in the balance sheet. The question raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (supra) which reads as under: The second question which arises for determination in these civil appeals is, whether it is imperative for the assessee-bank to close the individual account of each debtor in its books or a mere reduction in the \"Loans and Advances Account\" or Debtors to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful debt is sufficient? 10 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai 15.2 The above question was answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the manner as detailed below: \"8. Coming to the second question, we may reiterate that it is not in dispute that section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act applies both to Banking and Non-Banking businesses. The manner in which the write off is to be carried out has been explained hereinabove. It is important to note that the assessee-bank has not only been debiting the profit and loss account to the extent of the impugned bad debt, it is simultaneously reducing the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end, as stated hereinabove. In other words, the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end in the balance-sheet is shown as net of the provisions for impugned debt. However, what is being insisted upon by the Assessing Officer is that mere reduction of the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year- end would not suffice and, in the interest of transparency, it would be desirable for the assessee-bank to close each and every individual account of loans and advances or debtors as a pre-condition for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. This view has been taken by the Assessing Officer because the Assessing Officer apprehended that the assessee-bank might be taking the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of1961 Act, twice over. [See Order of CIT (A) at pages 66, 67 and 72 of the Paper Book, which refers to the apprehensions of the Assessing Officer]. In this context, it may be noted that there is no finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had unauthorisedly claimed the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii), twice over. The Order of the Assessing Officer is based on an apprehension that, if the assessee fails to close each and every individual account of its debtor, it may result in assessee claiming deduction twice over. In this case, we are concerned with the interpretation of section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. We cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehensions/desirability. It is always open to the Assessing Officer to call for details of individual debtor's account if the Assessing Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that assessee has claimed deduction, twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken in subsequent years. There is also a flipside to the argument of the Department. Assessee has instituted recovery suits in Courts against its debtors. If individual accounts 11 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai are to be closed, then the debtor/defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the Bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed.\" 15.3 In the case on hand we have seen the relevant page of profit and loss account placed on page 39 of the paper book where the assessee has claimed deduction for the provision of doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 55,69,760/- which was adjusted against the trade receivables as evident from the relevant schedule of the Balance Sheet of the assessee placed on page 34 of the paper book. 15.4 Besides this we also note that the tribunal in the own case of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 involving identical facts and circumstances has allowed the issue on hand in its favour in ITA No. 2521/AHD/2017 vide order dated 17.5.2019. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: 6. Heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears that the assessee has actually debited the provision of Rs.5,23,625/- to Profit and Loss account in respect of such doubtful debts and the same was also reduced in the balance sheet from sundry debtors/trade receivable. It also appears from the records that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank has been distinguished by the authorities below on the ground that said judgment relates to actual write off bad debts and not provision of bad debts. However, the judgment relied upon by the Learned AR has clearly laid down the ratio that mere debit to profit and loss account is not sufficient and simultaneously obliterating of provision from accounts by reduction from loans and advances or debtors on assets side of balance sheet amounts to writing off for grant of deduction. Moreso, disallowance for failure to close individual account of each debtors in account books is not justified. Further that, we have also carefully considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT- vs-Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. While deciding the identical issue 12 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai in favour of the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court took into consideration of the judgment passed in the matter of Vijaya Bank and observed as follows: \"16. We may however, appreciate the implication of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank (supra), on the true interpretation of clause(i) to the explanation 1 and the decisions of Karnataka High Court in cases of Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) and Kirloskar Systems Ltd. (supra). Vijaya Bank (supra) was a case arising under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee before the Supreme Court was a bank. The issue considered by the Supreme Court was whether it was imperative for the assessee bank to close the individual account of each of its debtors in its books or a mere reduction in the loans and advances or debtors on the asset side of its balance sheet to the extent of the provision for bad debt, would be sufficient to constitute a write-off. In this context, the Supreme Court considered the issue as to the manner in which the actual write off takes place under the accounting principle. It was noticed that prior to 1.4.1989 amendment in section 36(1)(vil), even the provision for the bad debt could be treated as write off. After 1.4.1989 however, a mere provision for bad debt would not be entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. In context of such statutory change, the Supreme Court referred to the decision in case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346, in which the following observations were made: \"Prior to April 1, 1989, the law, as it then stood, took the view that even in cases in which the assessee(s) makes only a provision in its accounts for bad debts and interest thereon and even though the amount is not actually written off by debiting the profit and loss account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). [See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom.) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj.)] Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee 13 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in the accounts of the assessee. The said amendment indicates that before April 1, 1989, even a provision could be treated as a write off. However, after April 1, 1989, a distinct dichotomy is brought in by way of the said Explanation to section 36(1) (vii). Consequently, after April 1, 1989, a mere provision for bad debt would not be entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(vii). To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand how to write off. If an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the asset account like sundry debtor's account, it would constitute a write off of an actual debt. However, if an assessee debits provision for doubtful debt' to the profit and loss account and makes a corresponding credit to the current liabilities and provisions' on the liabilities side of the balance-sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt. In the latter case, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction after April 1, 1989.\" 17/The Supreme Court (in Vijaya Bank) further observed as under: \"7. One point needs to be clarified. According to Shri Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Department, the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala [supra] was prior to the insertion of the Explanation vide Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 1st April, 1989, hence, that law is no more a good law. According to the learned counsel, in view of the insertion of the said Explanation in Section 36(1)(vii) with effect from 1st April, 1989, a mere debit of the impugned amount of bad debt to the Profit and Loss Account would not amount to actual write off. According to him, the Explanation makes it very clear that there is a dichotomy between actual write off on the one hand and a provision for bad and doubtful debt on the other. He submitted that a mere debit to the Profit and Loss Account would constitute a provision for bad and doubtful debt, it would not constitute actual write off and that was the very reason why the Explanation stood inserted. According to him, prior to Finance Act, 2001, many assessees used to take the benefit of deduction under Section 14 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act by merely debiting the impugned bad debt to the Profit and Loss Account and, therefore, the Parliament stepped in by way of Explanation to say that mere reduction of profits by debiting the amount to the Profit and Loss Account per se would not constitute actual write off. To this extent, we agree with the contentions of Shri Bhattacharya. However, as stated by the Tribunal, in the present case, besides debiting the Profit and Loss Account and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debt, the assessee-Bank had correspondingly/simultaneously obliterated the said provision from it's accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from Loans and Advances/debtors on the asset side of the Balance Sheet and, consequently, at the end of the year, the figure in the loans and advances or the debtors on the asset side of the Balance Sheet was shown as net of the provision \"for impugned bad debt\". In the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala [supra], a mere debit to the Profit and Loss Account was sufficient to constitute actual write off whereas, after the Explanation, the assessee(s) is now required not only to debit the Profit and Loss Account but simultaneously also reduce loans and advances or the debtors from the asset side of the Balance Sheet to the extent of the corresponding amount so that, at the end of the year, the amount of loans and advances/debtors is shown as net of provisions for impugned bad debt. This aspect is lost sight of by the High Court in it's impugned judgement. In the circumstances, we hold, on the first question, that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in it's Books, as indicated above.\" 18. It can thus be seen that in case of Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court explained that if an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the Profit and Loss account and credits the asset account like sundry debtor's account, it would constitute a write-off of an actual debt. On the other hand, if an assessee debits provision for doubtful debt to the Profit and Loss account and makes a corresponding credit to the current liabilities and provisions on the liabilities side of the balance sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt and in such a case 15 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai after 1.4.1989, the assessee could claim no deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 19. This principle was further clarified in case of Vijaya Bank (supra) by observing that in case on hand, the assessee besides debiting the profit and loss account and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debt, had simultaneously obliterated the said provision from its accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from loans and advances/debtors on the asset side of the balance sheet and consequently, at the end of the year, the figure of loans and advances or the debtors on the asset side of the balance sheet was shown as net of the provision for the bad debt. Thereafter, the Supreme Court rejecting the Revenue's contention that for the bank to take benefit of section 36(1) (vii), must close the account of the debtors, decided the question in favour of the assessee. 20. Above decisions of Supreme Court in cases of Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) and Vijaya Bank (supra) thus bring out a clear distinction between a case where the assessee may make a provision for doubtful debt and a case where the assessee after creating such a provision for bad and doubtful debt by debiting in Profit and Loss account also simultaneously removes such provision from its account by reducing the corresponding amount from the loans and advances on the asset aside of the balance sheet. The later would be an instance of write- off and not a mere provision.\" Respectfully, relying upon the judgment cited above, we do not hesitate to conclude that the assessee is entitled to be allowed the provision for bad and doubtful debts on the identical facts and circumstances of the case since it has debited the provision of Rs.5,23,625/- to the Profit and Loss account in respect of doubtful debts and also reduced the same amount in the balance sheet from sundry debtors - trade receivable. Such reduction from sundry debtors amounts to actual write off and hence we are of the considered opinion to delete the addition made by the authorities below. We order accordingly. 15.5 At the time of hearing, the learned DAR drew our attention on the various orders of the Hon'ble Courts and the Tribunal. But in 16 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai our considered view those judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case in the given circumstances. 15.6 In view of the above, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction with respect to the provisions made by it against the trade receivables in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we are not convinced with the finding of the authorities below and therefore the same deserves to be reversed. Thus we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9.2 From the above, we note that the ITAT in the case of Vidras India Ceramics (P.) Ltd (Supra) after considering and relying on the judgment of Hon'ble SC in the case of Vijaya Bank (Supra) has granted relief to the assessee for the provision made with respect to doubtful debts. Respectfully following the same we hold that assessee is eligible for deduction on account of provision for doubtful debts in the given facts and circumstances. It is for this reason that the assessee in the present case has written off the provision of doubtful debts in the profits and loss account and also has given effect in the balance sheet of the assessee. Thus to our understanding the principle laid down by the Hon'ble S.C in the case Vijay Bank as discussed above cannot be denied for its application merely on the reasoning that the word provision for doubtful debts has been used by the assessee in its Financial Statements. 9.3 It is also important to note that the assessee has not written off the provision for doubtful debts in the individual ledger account of the sundry debtors for the reason that it will lose it right in the Civil proceedings for recovery of its dues from the sundry debdtors. This argument of the Ld. A.R was not controverted by the Ld. DR for the assessee at the time of hearing. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the deduction for the provision of doubtful debts in the given facts and circumstances. 9.4 Regarding the provision for doubtful advances, we note that the same stand on the footing of doubtful debts as long as they were given in the course of the business. Therefore, on the same 17 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai line of reasoning we also hold that the assessee is allowed for the deduction of the provision for doubtful advances under the provision of section 37 of the Act. In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality we reverse the order of the authority below and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9.5. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 8. Apart from the above, we have also gone through the decision of Vidras India Ceramics Pvt Ltd, [2021] 129 taxman.com 320 (Ahmadabad Trib) wherein it was held as under: INCOME TAX: Where assessee-company has debited provision made in respect of doubtful debts to profit and loss account and also reduced same amount in balance sheet from sundry debtors/trade receivable, such simultaneous reduction from sundry debtors amounted to actual write off of debt and hence, same was to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii II. Section 36(1) (vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Bad debts (Write off) - Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee-company engaged in manufacturing and trading of ceramics tiles, claimed provision made for doubtful debts Assessing Officer disallowed same under explanation to clause (vii) of section 36(1) - Whether, since assessee-company has debited provision made in respect of doubtful debts to profit and loss account and also reduced same amount in balance sheet from sundry debtors/trade receivable, such simultaneous reduction from sundry debtors amounted to actual write off of debt and hence same was to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) Held, yes [Para 15.6] [In favour of assessee] 9. Apart similar question was also decided by the jurisdictional High Court of Mumbai in the case of CIT Vs. Tainwala Chemicals & Plastics India Ltd., [2013] 18 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai 34taxmann.com 159 (Bombay), wherein it was held as under: IT: Where assessee-company made provision for doubtful debt given to its group concern and had debited same to profit and loss account and correspondingly reduced assets by reducing amount of unsecured loans, doubtful debt qualified for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) Section 36(1) (vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Bad debts (Provision for doubtful debt] - Assessment year 2004-05-Assessee-company made provision for doubtful debt given to its group concern and claimed same to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) - It had debited provision of doubtful debt to profit and loss account and correspondingly reduced assets by reducing amount of unsecured loans It had lent surplus money and offered interest income to tax as business income Whether doubtful debt in question qualified for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee] 10. From the above, we noticed that Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Mumbai (supra) have granted relief by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (supra), wherein it was held that “once the provision of doubtful debt has been debited to the profit and loss account and corresponding provision has been credited or reduced from the debtors account in the balance sheet, then, this would amount to written off”. In the present case it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has debited the provision of doubtful debt from the P & L account, balance sheet and written off income, which amount to written off of the debt. 19 ITA No. 3272/Mum/2023 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai Therefore, respectfully following the decisions mentioned above and also considering the facts of the case, we hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction on account of provision for doubtful debt in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, while concurring with the stand of Ld. AR, we direct the Ld.AO to delete the impugned additions. 11. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (PADMAVATHY S) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 27/11/2024 KRK, PS आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u000eेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\f / The Appellant 2. \r\u000eथ\f / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0019 / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु\u0019(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय \rितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स\u000eािपत \rित //True Copy// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई / ITAT, Mumbai "