DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar V. M/s. The Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd, Bhubaneswar

ITA 124/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4329 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S C BHADRA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 115JB

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.124/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 124 /CTK/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 0 - 2011 DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - (1), BHUBANESWAR. VS. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.,IDCOL HOUSE, ASHOK NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR. PAN/GIR NO. AAACI 4821 L (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.C.BHADRA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 7 / 0 2 / 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 8 / 0 2 / 201 8 O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 1 BHUBANESWAR DATED 2.12.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CESSATION OF LOAN. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A WHOLLY OWNED GOVERNMENT COMPANY ENGAGED I N INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ORISSA AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 ON 28.9.2010 WITH NIL TOTAL INCOME AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILED THE REVISED 2 ITA NO.124/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 RETURN ON 29.6.2011 WITH TOTAL BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.6,56,56,115/ - . THE RETURN WAS PRO CESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.24,21,39,000/ - CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCED A SUM OF RS.50,00,000/ - AS EXEMPT INCOME WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. WHEN ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/ - WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS EXPLANATION WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON 26.2.3013 AS UNDER: 'DURING TH E CONSTRUCTION P ERIOD PRIOR TO 1990, OPGC HAD ADVANCED SOME AMOUNT TO IDCOL FOR SUPPLY OF PRODUCTS/RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES OF IDCOL GROUP I.E. HIWL AND IPEWL. AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF ADVANCES AGAI N ST SUPPLIES AND SERVICES, A SUM OF RS.50 LAKHS WAS LYING OUTST ANDING ON THE SAID LOAN. IN ANTICIPATION OF CLAIM FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY OPGC, INTEREST TOTALING RS.56.16 LAKHS WERE PROVIDED FOR THE SAID LOAN IN EARLIER YEARS TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 - 03. SINCE THEN NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED AND THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION BY OPGC FOR REPAYMENT OF ABOVE LOAN. CONSIDERING THE PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION OF A.G. AUDIT, THE AMOUNT OF LOAN ALONG WITH INTEREST PROVIDED ON THE ABOVE LOAN WAS UNILATERALLY WRITTEN BACK IN THE ACCOUNTS OF 2009 - 10 WITHOUT ANY CONFIRMA TION FROM OPGC. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE .AMOUNT OF INTEREST WRITTEN BACK AMOUNTING TO RS.56.16 LAKHS WERE OFFERED TO TAX AS THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENSES IN EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS WRITTEN BACK TOWARDS LOAN WAS N OT OFFERED TO TAX AS THE SAME WAS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT TAXABLE EITHER UNDER SECTION 28(IV)/OR UNDER SECTION 41(1). IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT UNILATERAL ACTION CANNOT BRING ABOUT A CESSATION OR REMISSION OF THE LIABILITY BECAUSE A REMISSION C AN BE GRANTED ONLY BY THE CREDITOR. IN THE INSTANCE CASE, THE LIABILITY FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN SUBSISTED AND DID NOT CEASE NOR WAS REMITTED BY THE CREDITOR (OPGC) AND THE LIABILITY WAS ENFORCEABLE IN A COURT OF LAW. HENCE, THE AMOUNT WAS NOT ASSESSABLE U/S. 41(L) AS DECIDED BY APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF (CIT VS. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS PVT. LTD.(1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC) AND BY DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD. (343 ITR 408). 3 ITA NO.124/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 IN VIEW OF ABOVE CLARIFICATION, THE AMOUNT OF UNILATERAL W RITE BACK OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS OF OPGC LOAN IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED.' 4. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE SATISFACTION OF A SSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(L)(A) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DT.5.3.2013. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND SAME WAS SENT TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR COMMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSEE'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED COMMENTS DATED 24.2.2016 ARE AS UNDER: 'ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED ON DT.05.03.2013 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.NIL AND BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB RS.18,51,18,000/ - . THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) BY WAY OF ADDITION U/S 41(1) OF IT ACT 1961 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME. TH E SAID AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR 2010 - 11 UNDER THE HEAD 'WRITTEN BACK OPGC LOAN'. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS WHEN IT WAS ASKED THAT WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED SUCH AMOUNT FROM THE NET PROFIT UNDER THE HEAD 'WRITTEN BACK OPGC LOAN' THEREAFTER, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT: - 'DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD TO 1990, OPGC HAD ADVANCED SOME AMOUNT TO IDCOL FOR SUPPLY OF PRODUCTS/RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES OF IDCOL GROUP, I.E. HIWL AND IPEWL. AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF DEMANDS AGAINST SUPPLIES AND SERVICES, A SUM OF RS.50 LAKHS WAS LYING OUTSTANDING ON THE SAID LOAN. IN ANTICIPATION OF CLAIM OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY OPGC, INTEREST TOTALLYING TO RS.56.16 LAKHS WERE PROVIDED FOR THE SAID LOAN IN 4 ITA NO.124/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 EARLIER YEARS UP TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 - 03. SINCE THEN NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED AND THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION BY OPGC FOR REPAYMENT OF ABOVE LO AN. CONSIDERING THE PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION OF A.G. AUDIT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN ALONG WITH INTEREST PROVIDED ON THE ABOVE LOAN WAS UNILATERALLY WRITTEN BACK IN THE ACCOUNTS OF 2009 - 10 WITHOUT ANY CONFIRMATION FROM OPGC. HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS WRI TTEN BACK TOWARDS LOAN WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX AS THE SAME WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT NOR TAXABLE EITHER UNDER SECTION 28(IV) OR UNDER SECTION 41(1).' THE SAID AMOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY IN ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR WILL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE A PREVIOUS YEAR. ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ABLE TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, NOR COULD ABLE TO PUT FORTH ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION TO PROVE THAT THE LOAN WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE OR A TERM LOAN TAKEN FOR ACQUISITION OF A CAPITAL ASSET. AS ABOVE FROM ITS EXPLANATION IT IS REITERATED FROM ITS SUBMISSION THAT 'DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD PRIOR TO 1990 OPGC HAD ADVANCED SOME AMOUNT TO IDCOL: FOR SUPPLY OF PRODUCTS/RENDERING OF SERVICES ... THIS STATEMENT ITSELF CONNOTES THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS NOT ADVANCED FOR ANY CAPITAL ASSET BUT FOR SUPPLY PRODUCTS/RENDERING SERVICES WHICH ARE TRADING/REVENUE NATURE. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE WRITE BACK OF RS.50 LAKH WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX AS THE SAME WAS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECE IPT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ON MERIT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION FROM ITS P/L ACCOUNT. FURTHERMORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT UNILATERAL ACTION CANNOT BRING ABOUT A CESSATION OR REMISSION OF THE LIABILITY IT IS IMPORTANT TO THE INTENT OF SECTION 41(1) OF IT ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER: - 'EXPLANATION 1 - FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUB - SECTION, THE EXPRESSION 'LOSS OR EXPENDITURE OR SOME BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH TRADING LIABILITY BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION THEREOF SHALL INCLUDE THE REMISSI ON OR CESSATION OF ANY LIABILITY BY A UNILATERAL ACT BY THE FIRST MENTIONED PERSON UNDER CLAUSE(A) OR THE SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS UNDER CLAUSE(B) OF THAT SECTION BY WAY OF WRITING OFF SUCH LIABILITY IN HIS ACCOUNTS.' IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE EXPLA NATION THAT ANY UNILATERAL ACT BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO INCLUSIVE IN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE IT ACT 1961 AND IS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT SECTION TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED SUO MOTU THROUGH ITS EXPLANATION AS ABOVE. AS OBSERVED FROM THE EX PLANATION ON WRITTEN SUBMISSION PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS AT SI NO. 1.3 IT IS 5 ITA NO.124/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF WAIVER OF LOAN, TAXABILITY WOULD DEPEND UPON THE PURPOSE OF WHICH THE LOAN WAS TAKEN. ALSO A FEW DOCUMENTS IN SHAPE OF XE ROX COPIES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. PRIMAFACIE SCRUTINY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS IT APPEARS TO BE THOSE RELATES TO TRANSACTION OF LOAN BY THE PARTY WITH IB THERMAL PO WER STATION, OPGC DURING THE PERIOD 1999, 2000 TO 2004. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER DO NOT DESCRIBE THE DETAILS AS CLAIMED BY IT IN THE ENCLOSURES ANNEXED WITH THE REJOINDER. THE DETAILS OF CONTENTS BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE POST ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER. ALSO THE DOCUMENTS APPEAR TO BE OLDER THAN FOR A PERIOD OF 10 - 12 YEARS AGO. THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.4 6A OF IT ACT, ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THROUGH OUT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS FOR EXEMPTION OF ITS CLAIM THAT SUCH WRITE OFF OF LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.50,00,000/ - IS CAPITAL IN NATURE OR A TERM LOAN TAKEN FOR ACQUISITI ON OF A CAPITAL ASSET, RATHER FROM ITS EXPLANATION PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS STATED THAT 'DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD PRIOR TO 1990, OPGC HAD ADVANCED SOME AMOUNT TO IDCOL FOR SUPPLY OF PRODUCTS/RENDERING OF SERVICE. H ENCE, THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING REMAND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT ONLY FOR WHICH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS LIABLE TO SUSTAINED WITHOUT GRANTING ANY RELIEF ON THIS ISSUE. 6. THE LD CTI(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVIN G AT PARA 11 PAGE 5 AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. THE WHOLE ISSUE REVOLVES AROUND THE APPLICATION OF SE CTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. SUB - SECTION 1 OF SECTION 41 PROVIDES AS UNDER: 'WHERE AN ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR IN RESPECT OF LOSS, EXPENDITURE OR TRADING LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE FIRST - MENTIONED PERSON) AND SUBSEQUENTLY DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, (A) THE FIRST - MENTIONED PERSON HAS OBTAINED , WHETHER IN CASH OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER, ANY AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF SUCH 10 LOSS OR EXPENDITURE 13 - OR SOME BENEFIT IN RESPECT O F SUCH TRADING LIABILITY 13 BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION THEREOF 13 , THE AMOUNT OBTAINED BY SUCH PERSON OR THE VALUE OF BENEFIT ACCRUING TO HIM SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND ACCORDINGLY CHARGEABLE TO INCOME - TAX 6 ITA NO.124/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 AS THE INCOME OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, WHETHER THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE IS IN EXISTENCE IN THAT YEAR OR NOT; OR. (B) THE SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS HAS OBTAINED 13 , WHETHER IN CASH OR IN A N Y OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER, ANY AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF WHICH LOSS OR EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE. FIRST - MENTIONED PERSON OR SOME BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF THE TRADING LIABILITY REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION THEREOF 13 , THE AMOUNT OBTAINED 1 3 BY THE SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS OR THE VALUE OF BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, AND ACCORDINGLY CHARGEABLE TO INCOME - TAX AS THE INCOME OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR.' A PLAIN READ ING OF THE ABOVE SECTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ONLY SUCH REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILITY CAN BE TAXED AS PROFITS IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY EARLIER YEAR. IT IS CLEAR FROM THIS THAT ONLY TRADIN G LIABILITIES OR LIABILITIES WHICH HAVE ARISEN HAVING BEEN DEBITED THE P&L ACCOUNT IN EARLIER YEARS CAN BE TAXED AS PROFITS U/S.41(L). IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS INDICATE THAT THE AMOUNT WRITTEN - OFF (WRITTEN BACK BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS ) REPRESENTS A PART OF THE LOAN FROM OPGC WH ICH WAS TAKEN LONG BACK. THERE IS PERHAPS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THIS. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIALS ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT A DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/ - WAS ALLOWED TO TH E ASSESSEE IN ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) ARE FOUND NOT APPLICABLE SO FAR AS THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/ - IS CONCERNED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/ - IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 7. BEFORE US, LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION DUE TO CESSATION OF LOAN LIABILITY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS DEALT ON THIS ISSUE OF WRITTEN BACK OF OPGC LOAN WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED TH ESE FACT S IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT . THE ASSESSEE FILED EXPLANATION ON 26.2.2013 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION AND THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATIONS ARE WITHOUT THE SATISFACTION AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN BACK THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/ - AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND 7 ITA NO.124/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. HENCE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO MAKE THE ADDITION. WHEREAS THE CIT(A) BASED ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT HAS GRANTED RELIEF WHICH IS NOT TENABLE AND PRAYED THAT THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE R ESTORED. 8. CONTRA, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE MATERIALS . 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE S O LE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WITH RESPECT TO WRITTEN OFF OF LOAN FROM OPGC . THE CONTENTION OF LD D.R. IS THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. LD A.R. SUBMITTED A CERTIFICATE OF ADJUSTMENT OF LOAN DATED 24.2.2000 AND ALSO SUPPORTED WITH THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31.3.1995, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE LOAN FROM OPG OF RS.1,50,00,000/ - IN THE SAI D FINANCIAL YEAR . THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) INDICATE THAT THE AMOUNT WRITTEN - OFF (WRITTEN BACK BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS) REPRESENTS A PART OF THE LOAN FROM OPGC WHICH WAS TAKEN LONG BACK , WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY LD D.R AND ALSO THE REVENU E NOT PLACE COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/ - WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEAR . ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE FA C TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND LD CIT(A) HAS DEALT ON THE ISSUE AND AFTER 8 ITA NO.124/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 ENQUIRING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD VIS - - VIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CI(A) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 2 8 / 0 2 /201 8 . S D / - S D / - ( N.S SAINI) ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 2 8 / 0 2 /201 8 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - (1), BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.,IDCOL HOUSE, ASHOK NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR 3. THE CIT(A) - 1, BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.CIT - 1, BHUBANESWAR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//