The ITO, Ward-1(3), Surat V. M/s. Marg Techno Projects Ltd., Surat

ITA 162/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6318 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, AM) ITA NO.162/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2004-05 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (3), ROOM NO.113, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS MARG TECHNO PROJECTS LTD., 9, GOVARDHAN APARTMENT, GODHA STREET, NANPURA, SURAT PA NO. AABCM 6013 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI A. K. PATEL, DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, SURAT DATED 14 TH NOVEMBER,2008, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 CHALLENG ING THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO H AS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BAD DEBTS UNDER THE HEAD ADMI NISTRATIVE EXPENSES. IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.72,47,88 6/-. ACCORDING TO THE AO WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH BA D DEBTS WERE CLAIMED WERE LIVE PARTIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TRAN SACTION UP TO THE ITA NO.162/AHD/2009 ITO, WARD 1 (3), SURAT VS MARG TECHNO PROJECTS LTD. 2 CURRENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED THE PRINCI PAL AMOUNTS FROM THE DEBTORS AND INTEREST WAS SHOWN AS WRITTEN OFF A ND CLAIMED AS BAD DEBTS. THE FACTS IN THE CURRENT YEAR WERE ALSO FOUN D SAME; THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY SIMILAR DISALLOWAN CE BE NOT MADE. THE AO REPRODUCED THE DETAILS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER TO NOTE THAT THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS IS MADE IN RESPECT OF PRINCI PAL AMOUNTS FOR SOME PARTIES AND IN RESPECT OF SOME PARTIES CLAIM I S MADE FOR INTEREST AND IN SOME OTHER CASES BOTH THE AMOUNTS WERE CLAIM ED AS BAD DEBTS. THEREFORE, THE AO ON THE LINE OF DISALLOWANC E MADE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DISALLOWED THE BA D DEBTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT CLAIM OF B AD DEBTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 07-09-2006 IN ITA NO.1685/AHD/2006 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS WHICH IS REPRODUCED B Y THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) C ONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOUND THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT YEAR ARE EXACTLY SAME AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND REPRODUCED THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTS ET SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AS IS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LEARN ED DR DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACTS AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BUT SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO.162/AHD/2009 ITO, WARD 1 (3), SURAT VS MARG TECHNO PROJECTS LTD. 3 DEPARTMENT DID NOT ACCEPT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND APPEAL IS PENDING IN THE HIGH COURT. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT YEAR ARE SAME AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR PREC EDING ASSESSMENT YEAR ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DISALLOWING THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE LINE OF THE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, RIGHTL Y FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING T HE ADDITIONS. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS NO M ERIT AND IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-06-2011 SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 24-06-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- ITA NO.162/AHD/2009 ITO, WARD 1 (3), SURAT VS MARG TECHNO PROJECTS LTD. 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD