Fire Challenger, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1023/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90720 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Recovery proceedings; Tangible material; Bad and doubtful debts; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! # , $ & BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO . 1186/MDS/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(5) 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH RD., CHENNAI. VS M/S. FIRE CHALLENGER, 3, DEENADAYALU STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. PAN: AAAFF1060H ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) & ./ I.T.A.NO . 1023/MDS/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99) M/S. FIRE CHALLENGER, 3, DEENADAYALU STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(5) 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH RD., CHENNAI. PAN: AAAFF1060H ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : MR. N.DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 3 RD JUNE, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 TH JULY, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- II, CHENNAI DATED 11.03.20 13 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2 ITA NOS.1186 & 1023 /MDS/2013 ITA NO.1023/MDS/2013 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSL Y ERRED IN CONFIRMING REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. 3. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITS THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 IS BAD IN LAW AS THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR REOPENI NG OF ASSESSMENT. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 11.07.1998 DECL ARING LOSS OF ` 50,45,668/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTI ON 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 22.02.2001. COUNSEL SUBMITS TH AT THERE IS NO ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WA S MADE. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ISS UE OF NOTICE DATED 28.03.2005 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE AC T WITHIN FOUR YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED BAD DEBTS AND OTHER EXPENSES WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON CHANGE OF OPINION. IT WAS FURTHER CO NTENDED THAT NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL IS ON RECORD SUGGESTING T HAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND THEREFORE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW. 3 ITA NOS.1186 & 1023 /MDS/2013 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT IN THIS CASE NO ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITS THAT DE DUCTIONS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN EXCESS OF AMOU NT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT E XPRESSED ANY OPINION AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF A NY CHANGE OF OPINION. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVER I STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. (291 ITR 500), DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITS THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS VALID. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ORDER S OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THIS CASE, RETURN WAS PROCESS ED UNDER SECTION 143((1) ON 22.02.2001AND NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 AND DISAL LOWED THE CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS AND VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITE D TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR NON-FURNISHING OF DETAILS. IN OUR VIEW, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE IS IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW AND DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY. IT IS N OT IN DISPUTE THAT NO REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G 4 ITA NOS.1186 & 1023 /MDS/2013 OFFICER AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(1) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION OR TO MAKE DISALLOWANC E AND SUBSEQUENTLY IF HE FINDS THAT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW, IT CANNOT BE SAID TH AT THERE IS A CHANGE OF OPINION. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS RAJESH JH AVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD (SUPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT WHILE EXPLAINING THE AMENDED LAW RELATING THE REOPE NING OF ASSESSMENT HELD AS UNDER:- UNDER THE SCHEME OF SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961, AS SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.89, AND P RIOR TO ITS SUBSTITUTION W.E.F. 1.6.99, WHAT WERE PERMISSIBLE T O BE ADJUSTED UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 143(1)(A) WERE: (I) ONLY APPARENT ARITHMETICAL ERRORS IN THE RETURN, ACCOUNT S OR DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN, (II) LOSS CARRIE D FORWARD, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF, WHICH WAS PRIMA-FAC IE ADMISSIBLE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN BUT NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN AND SIMILARLY (III) THOSE CLAIMS WHICH WERE ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE R ETURN, PRIMA FACIE INADMISSIBLE AND WERE TO BE RECTIFIED/ALLOWED /DISALLOWED. WHAT WAS PERMISSIBLE WAS CORRECTION OF ERRORS APPAR ENT ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE ADJUSTME NTS OR ADJUDICATE UPON ANY DEBATABLE ISSUES. IN OTHER WORD S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO POWER TO GO BEHIND THE RET URN, ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS, EITHER IN ALLOWING OR IN DI SALLOWING DEDUCTIONS, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF. THOUGH TECHNICALLY THE INTIMATION ISSUED WAS DEEMED TO BE A DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156, THAT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 143(2): THAT RIGHT IS PRESERVED AND NOT TAKEN AWAY. WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1998, THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 143(1)(A) WAS SUBSTITUTED. DURING THE PERIO D 5 ITA NOS.1186 & 1023 /MDS/2013 BETWEEN 1.4.98 AND 31.05.1999 SENDING OF AN INTIMAT ION WAS MANDATORY. THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS VERY CLEAR FRO M THE USE OF THE WORD INTIMATION AS SUBSTITUTED FOR ASSESSMEN T THAT TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS EMERGE. WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSME NT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO MAKE ANY ADDITION AFTER GRANT OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. BY MAKING ADJUSTMEN TS UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 143(1)(A) NO AD DITION WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE BY THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RE TURN COULD BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE INTIMATION UN DER SECTION 143(1)(A) CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO THE NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 143(1), WITH EFFECT FROM 1.6.1999 EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE PROVISION ITSELF, THE ACKNOWLEDGMEN T OF THE RETURN SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AN INTIMATION UNDE R SECTION 143(1) WHERE (A) EITHER NO SUM IS PAYABLE B Y THE ASSESSEE OR (B) NO REFUND IS DUE TO HIM. IT IS SI GNIFICANT THAT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS NOT DONE BY ANY ASSESSI NG OFFICER BUT MOSTLY BY MINISTERIAL STAFF. IT CANNOT THEREFORE BE SAID THAT AN ASSESSMENT IS DONE BY THEM. THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) WAS DEEMED TO B E A NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 FOR THE APPARENT PURPOSE OF MAKING MACHINERY PROVISIONS RELATING TO RECOVERY OF TAX APPLICABLE. BY SUCH APPLICATION ONL Y RECOVERY INDICATED TO BE PAYABLE IN THE INTIMATION BECAME PERMISSIBLE. NOTHING MORE CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE DEEMING PROVISIONS. THEREFORE, THERE BEING NO ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A), THE QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION DOES NOT ARISE. 6. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO LAID DOWN THA T THERE IS NO CHANGE OF OPINION WHERE NO REGULAR ASSE SSMENT HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION, WE U PHOLD THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 6 ITA NOS.1186 & 1023 /MDS/2013 7. THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS A PPEAL IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JU STIFIED IN SUSTAINING TRAVELLING, CONVEYANCE AND SALARY EXPENS ES PARTIALLY. 8. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 9. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSE SSMENT DISALLOWED VARIOUS EXPENSES TOWARDS TRAVELLING, CON VEYANCE AND SALARY FOR WANT OF DETAILS. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) PARTIALLY ALLOWED THESE EXPENSES OBSERVIN G AS UNDER:- 6.2.1 THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF RS.23,45,452/- THE TOTAL COMPRISES OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.9,43,868/- ,BOARDING & LODGING EXPENSES OF RS.6,99,653/- AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 7,01,931/-.: THE APPELLA NT HAS SUBMITTED BILLS FOR RS.6,70,462/- AND ,RS.L,08, 130/- FOR TRAVELLING AND BOARDING & LODGING RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS STATED THAT THE OTHER EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN CAS H AND ONLY CASH VOUCHERS ARE AVAILABLE . HOWEVER, NO DETA ILS OF SUCH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN GIVEN. IN ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS, EXPENSES OF RS. 7,78,592/- (RS.6,70,462/- + RS.L,08,130/-) IS ALLOWED AND ADDITION OF ` 15,66,860/- IS SUSTAINED. THE ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7 ITA NOS.1186 & 1023 /MDS/2013 6.2.2 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO INCURRED COMMUNICATION EXPENSES OF RS.7,72,285/-. HOWEVER, THE:/APPELLANT HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS ONLY FOR RS.6,31,038/-. IN ABSENC E OF ANY DETAILS, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,41,247/- IS SUSTA INED. AS REGARDS THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.6,31,038/-, IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE TELEPHONE EXPENSES WERE TOWARDS BSNL, LUCKNOW TELEPHONES, MADRAS TELEPHONES, CHENNAI TELEPHONES AND SKYCELL COMMUNICATIONS. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY AS WELL AS IN THE NAME OF SHRI T.DEVANATHAN. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE TELEPHONE USED BY SHRI DEVANATHAN WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE APPELLANT FIR M. HENCE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE COMMUNICATIO N EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF THE BILLS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT AND DISALLOW THE PAYMENT MADE IN THE NAME OF SHRI DEVANTHAN. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, TH E GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6.2.3 THE NEXT ISSUE IS DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY EXPE NSES RS.9,68,818/-. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE BU SINESS CANNOT BE RUN WITHOUT PAYMENT OF SALARY. HE, HOWEVER] ADMITTED THAT ALL THE SALARIES WERE PAID IN CASH. B UT, NO DETAILS REGARDING THE NAME OF THE PERSONS, DESIGNAT ION, ADDRESS, DETAILS OF PROVIDENT FUND PAYMENT ETC WERE PROVIDED. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE SALARY CANNOT BE AL LOWED. HOWEVER, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS CARRIED OUT BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR, SALARY @ RS.30,000.- PER MONTH AMOUNTING TO RS.3,60,000 /- IS CONSIDERED REASONABL E AND ALLOWED. THE REMAINING ADDITION OF ` 6,08,818/- IS SUSTAINED. 11. ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE FINDINGS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REJECTED T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NOS.1186 & 1023 /MDS/2013 ITA NO.1186/MDS/2013: 12. COMING TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, T HE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE T OWARDS BAD DEBITS WRITTEN OFF AS PREMATURE. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DEALT WITH BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. VS. CIT (323 ITR 397), DELETED THE BAD DEBTS WHICH WERE WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ID.AR. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ID. AR. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ID.AR. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD SUPPLIED 40 AND 103 PUMPS VIDE INVOIC E NOS.L13 ARID 114 DATED 25.08.1997. THE VALUE OF 40 PUMPS WAS RS.99,60,000/- FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN DULY RECEIVED. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING NON-RE CEIPT OF PAYMENT OF THE SECOND LOT OF 103 PUMPS WORTH RS.2,66,72,880/-. SINCE THE PAYMENT WAS NOT RECEIVE D, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED IT AS BAD DEBT IN ITS PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE APPELLANT HAS ENCLOSED COPIES OF THE BILL AND DELIVERY CHALLAN IN THE NAME OF THE INSPEC TOR GENERAL OF POLICE, UP FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT, IND IRA BHAVAN, LUCKNOW, UP. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE PAYMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE INVOICE. SINCE THE PUMPS WERE DELIVERED ON 25.08.1997, THE PAYMENT SHOULD HAVE BE EN MADE BEFORE 25.11.1997. HOWEVER, THE PAYMENT WAS NO T MADE WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE MATTER WAS TAKEN FOR ARBITRATION WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. BUT, THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ON APPEAL, TH E 9 ITA NOS.1186 & 1023 /MDS/2013 HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, KANPUR SET-ASIDE THE ARBITR ATION AWARD. THE ABOVE ORDER IS BEING CONTESTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE HORI'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN VARIO US STEPS TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THE SAID PAYM ENT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED TILL NOW EVEN AFTER 14 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUPPLY. DUE TO NON-PAYMENT OF THE BILL FOR SUPPLY OF 103 PUMPS BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE APPELLANT HAS WRITTEN-OFF THE SAID AMOUNT. AS SUBMI TTED BY THE AR THE APPELLANT HAD CREDITED THE SAME TO I TS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS PREM ATURE TO WRITE OFF THE DEBT. THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DIS TRICT COURT HAS ALSO NOT BECOME FINAL BECAUSE THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. THE ID.AR IN THIS REGARD HAS RELIED ON THE DECISIONS ;1 OF THE HORI'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MORGAN SECURITIES AND CRE DITS PVT. LTD. AND AUTOMETERS LTD. (SUPRA). ,THE HON'BLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASES HAVE HELD THAT THE REQUIRE MENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT A DEBT HAS BECOME BAD DE BT WAS DISPENSED WITH BY THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 36(1)(VII) W.E.F. 1.4.1989 AND THEREAFTER ALL THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS TO DO IS TO WRITE OFF THE BAD DEBT AS IRRECOVERABLE. I N ITS ACCOUNT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T RF LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT AFTER 1.4.1989, IT IS NOT NEC ESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT, IN FAC T, HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN-OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KRONE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. 333 ITR 497 (KAR), ACIT V. PULL EN PUMP INDUSTRIES, 337 ITR 294 (GUJ), C::IT V. SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LTD., 334 ITR 256 (AP). SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS WRITTEN OFF THE AMOUNT AS IRRECOVERABLE IN ITS BOOK S OF ACCOUNT, RESPECTFULLY , FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIO NS, IT IS HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT CANNOT BE DISALLOWE D. THE AO IS, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME. THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 13. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD.(SUPRA) WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETIN G THE 10 ITA NOS.1186 & 1023 /MDS/2013 DISALLOWANCE MADE TOWARDS BAD DEBTS, AS THE ASSESSE E HAS WRITTEN OFF THE BAD DEBTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( ! ) ( $ '! ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' /CHENNAI, + /DATED 29 TH JULY, 2015 SOMU -. /. /COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. ASSESSING OFFICER 3. 0 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 /CIT 5. . 4 /DR 6. /GF .