DARSHAN ROADLINES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 186/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5433 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL NATHA LD
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Provision of bad debts
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.186/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED 301, COMMERCIAL MANOR 4 TH CROSS CLIVE ROAD, MASJID (E) MUMBAI-400 009 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(2)(1) AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACCD-8064-C ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : SUNIL NATHA, LD.AR RE VENUE BY : RAM TIWARI, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 19/07/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/07/2018 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2012-13 CONTEST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS)-12 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-12/ACIT-6(2)(1)/197/15-16 DATED 03/10/2016 QUA CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS PROVISION OF BAD DEBTS . THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(2)(1), MUMBA I [AO] U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 25/03/2015 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.428.32 LACS UNDER NORMAL PROVISION AFTER CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES AS AGAINST RETURNED INC OME OF RS.400.01 LACS E- FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29/10/2012. THE ADDITION OF RS. 26.88 LACS ON ACCOUNT FOR PROVISION OF BAD DEBTS IS THE SOLE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS APPEAL. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ASSESSEE ENGAGED AS TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.26.88 LACS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS . IT WAS NOTED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF PROVISI ON WAS REDUCED FROM TOTAL DEBTORS IN THE BALANCE SHEET . THE SAME, IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS O F SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A SCHEDULED BANK AND SECONDLY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT WRITTEN-OFF THE AMOUNT FROM THE PA RTICULAR DEBTORS ACCOUNT. FINALLY, THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHO UT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03/10/2 016 WHEREIN THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 6.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELL ANT HAS NOT WRITTEN OFF THE DEBTORS ACCOUNT AND CLAIM THE DEDUCTION OF PROVISION OF BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE APP LICABLE SECTION IS REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE WHICH IS AS UNDER: 36 (VII) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE AMOUNT OF [ANY BAD DEBT OR PART THEREOF WHICH IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR]: [PROVIDED THAT IN THE CASE OF [AN ASSESSEE] TO WHICH CLAUSE (VIIA) APPLIES, THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTION RELATING TO ANY SUCH DEBT OR PART THEREOF SHALL BE LI MITED TO THE AMOUNT BY WHICH SUCH DEBT OR PART THEREOF EXCEEDS THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THE PROVISION FO R BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ACCOUNT MADE UNDER THAT CLAUSE.] ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 3 [EXPLANATION-FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE, ANY BAD D EBT 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. 36 (2) IN MAKING ANY DEDUCTION FOR A BAD DEBT OR PAR T THEREOF, THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS SHALL APPLY- [(I) NO SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS SUCH DE BT OR PART THEREOF HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEBT OR PART THEREOF IS WRITTEN OFF OR OF AN EARLIER PREVIOU S YEAR, OR REPRESENTS MONEY LENT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR MONEY-LENDING WH ICH IS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE;] (II) IF THE AMOUNT ULTIMATELY RECOVERED ON ANY SUCH DEB T OR PART OF DEBT IS LESS THAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEBT OR PART AND THE AMOUNT SO DEDUCTED, THE DEFICIENCY SHALL BE DEDUCTIBLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE ULTIMATE RECOVERY IS MADE; (III) ANY SUCH DEBT OR PART OF DEBT MAY BE DEDUCTED IF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF AN EARLIER PREVIOUS YEAR [(BEING A PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988, OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR) ], BUT THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER HAD NOT ALLOWED IT TO BE DEDUCTED ON THE GRO UND THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED TO HAVE BECOME A BAD DEBT IN THAT YEAR; (IV) WHERE ANY SUCH DEBT OR PART OF DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR [(BEING A PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988, OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR)] AND THE [ASSESSI NG] OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT SUCH DEBT OR PART BECAME A BAD DEBT IN ANY EARLIER PREVIOUS YEAR NOT FAL LING BEYOND A PERIOD F FOUR PREVIOUS YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH DEBT OR PART IS WRITTEN OFF, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 155 SHALL APPLY; [(V) WHERE SUCH DEBTS OR PART OF DEBT RELATES TO ADVANCE MADE BY AN ASSESSEE TO WHICH CLAUSE (VIIA) OF SUB-SECTION (1) APPLIES, NO SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEBT OR PART OF DEBT IN THAT PREVIOUS YE AR TO THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ACCOUNT MADE UNDER THAT CLAUSE.] PERUSAL OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION, 36(VII), MAK ES IT CLEAR THAT ANY PROVISION MADE FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE A MOUNTS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT IS N OT AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. FURTHER, SECTION 36(2)(I) ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT BAD & DOU BTFUL DEBTS IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNLESS IT IS WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TAINWAL CHEMICALS & PLASTICS INDIA LTD. (34 TAXMANN.COM 159 ) RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN THE CASE OF TAINWAL CHEMICALS & PLASTICS INDIA LTD THE PROVISION OF DOUBTFUL DEBT WAS DEBITED TO T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND CORRESPONDINGLY THE ASSESSEE REDUCED THE ASSETS BY REDUCING AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. BUT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROVISION OF B AD & DOUBTFUL DEBT HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BUT CORRESPO NDING DEBTORS ACCOUNT WERE NOT REDUCED. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAW REFERRED TO BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE TO THE INSTANT CASE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T R F LTD. (190 TAXMAN 391) HELD THAT AFTER 1-4-1989, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR ASSESSEE T O ESTABLISH THAT DEBTS, IN FACT, HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE; IT IS ENOUGH IF BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE . IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT WRITTEN OFF THE BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS AGAINST THE CO RRESPONDING DEBTORS ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS RIGHTLY DIS ALLOWED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 4 4. THE LD. AUHTORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [ AR], SHRI SUNIL NATHA, DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS PLACED IN THE PAPER-BOOK, SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT AS DEBITED IN TH E PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NOT MERE PROVISION IN NATURE RAT HER THE PARTICULAR DEBTORS AGAINST WHICH THESE AMOUNTS WERE DEBITED WE RE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AND THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS REDUCED FROM THE AGGREGATE OF SUNDRY DEBTORS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDER ED IN VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT [2010 190 TAXMAN 257] WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. TAINWALA CHEMICALS & PLASTICS INDIA LTD. [34 TAXMANN.COM 159] TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT THE REDUCTION ON GROSS BASIS, AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE, AMOUNTS TO AC TUAL WRITING-OFF OF THE DEBTS AND IT WAS NOT NECESSARY THAT EACH AND EVERY DEBTO RS ACCOUNTS WAS TO BE CLOSED SO AS TO MAKE A VALID CLA IM. THE SAME HAS BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E [DR], SHRI RAM TIWARI , WHO SUBMITTED THAT THE STATUTORY CONDITIONS AS EN VISAGED BY LAW WERE NOT FULFILLED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SO FAR AS THE FACTUAL MATRIX IS CONCERNE D, WE FIND THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE I MPUGNED AMOUNT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND REDUCED THE CORRESPON DING AMOUNT FROM AGGREGATE OF SUNDRY DEBTORS IN THE BALANCE SHEET . THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE DENIED THE CLAIM ON THE PREMISES THAT THE IMPU GNED EXPENDITURE WAS MERE PROVISION IN NATURE AND SECONDLY THE INDIV IDUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE DEBTORS WERE NOT CLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 5 6. IN TERMS OF RATIO OF DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN T.R.F. LTD. VS. CIT [2010 190 TAXMAN 391], IT IS SETTLED POSITION THAT POST 01/04/1989, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR ASSESSEE T O ESTABLISH THAT DEBT, IN FACT, HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT WAS ENOUGH IF BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , THE ONLY CONDITION TO BE FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE DEBT I S CLAIMED AS IRREVOCABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESS EE NEED NOT PROVE THE FACT THAT THE DEBT HAS ACTUALLY BECOME BAD. 7. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A SCHEDULED BANK, ITS CLAIM CERTAINLY DO NOT FALL UNDER 36(1)(VIIA) AS RIGHTLY NOTED BY LD. AO. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FALL U/S 36(1)(VII), WHIC H IS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE MATTER HAS EXAMINED BY LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII). 8. NOW THE ONLY QUESTION THAT SURVIVES FOR OUR CONS IDERATION IS THAT WHETHER THE REDUCTION OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS ON AG GREGATE BASIS WITHOUT CLOSING INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS ENTITLE THE ASS ESSEE TO CLAIM THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION OR NOT ?. THE ANSWER TO THE SAM E LIES IN ASSESSEES FAVOR BY THE RATIO OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME C OURT RENDERED IN VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT [2010 190 TAXMAN 257] WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 3. IN THESE CIVIL APPEALS, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH ASSE SSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1994-95. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 7,10,47,161 WHICH THE ASSESSEE-BANK HAD REDUCED FROM LOANS AND ADVANCES OR DEBTORS ON THE GROUND THAT THE IMPUGNED BAD DEBT HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE IMPUGNED BAD DEBT SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE-BANK WAS A MERE PROVISI ON AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE EQUATED WITH THE ACTUAL WRITE OFF OF THE BAD DEBT, AS PER T HE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('1961 ACT', FOR SHORT) READ W ITH EXPLANATION THERETO WHICH ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 6 EXPLANATION STOOD INSERTED IN 1961 ACT BY FINANCE A CT, 2001 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ['CIT(A)', FOR SHORT], WHO OPINED THAT IT WAS NOT N ECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF WRITING OFF OF BAD DEBTS TO PASS CORRESPONDING ENTRIES IN THE INDI VIDUAL ACCOUNT OF EACH AND EVERY DEBTOR AND THAT IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT IF THE DEBIT ENTRIE S ARE MADE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND CORRESPONDING CREDIT IS MADE IN THE 'BAD DEBT RESER VE ACCOUNT'. AGAINST THE DECISION OF CIT(A) ON THIS POINT, THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED AN A PPEAL TO THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ['TRIBUNAL', FOR SHORT]. BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL, IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT WRITE OFF OF EACH AND EVERY INDIVID UAL ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD 'LOANS AND ADVANCES' OR DEBTORS WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF 1961 ACT. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT , THE CLAIM OF ACTUAL WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS IN RELATION TO BANKS STOOD ON A FOOTING DIFFE RENT FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE NON-BANKING ASSESSEE(S), THOUGH IT WAS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US T HAT SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF 1961 ACT COVERS BANKING AS WELL AS NON-BANKING ASSESSEES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, ONCE A PROVISION STOOD CREATED AND, ULTIMATELY, CARRIED TO THE BALAN CE SHEET WHEREIN LOANS AND ADVANCES OR DEBTORS DEPICTED STOOD REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF SUC H PROVISION, THEN, THERE WAS ACTUAL WRITE OFF BECAUSE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, AT THE YE AR-END, THE SO-CALLED PROVISION DOES NOT REMAIN AND THE BALANCE SHEET AT THE YEAR-END ONLY C ARRIES THE AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES OR DEBTORS, NET OF SUCH PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSES SEE FOR THE IMPUGNED BAD DEBT. THE TRIBUNAL, ACCORDINGLY, UPHELD THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THREE GROUNDS. FIRSTLY, ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD RIGHTLY MADE A PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT BY DEBITING THE AMOUNT OF BAD DEBT TO THE PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SO AS TO REDUCE THE PROFITS OF THE YEAR. SECONDLY, THE PROVISION ACCOUN T SO CREATED WAS DEBITED AND SIMULTANEOUSLY THE AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES OR DEBTORS STOOD REDUCED AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROVISION ACCOUNT STOOD OBLITERAT ED. LASTLY, ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL, LOANS AND ADVANCES OR THE SUNDRY DEBTORS OF THE ASS ESSEE AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR LYING IN THE BALANCE SHEET WAS SHOWN AS NET OF 'PROVISIONS F OR DOUBTFUL DEBT' CREATED BY WAY OF DEBIT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR. CONSEQU ENTLY, THE TRIBUNAL, ON THIS POINT, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(V II) OF 1961 ACT WAS ALLOWABLE. 4. ON THE QUESTION WHETHER IT WAS IMPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CLOSE EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT AND ITS DEBTORS IN ITS BOOKS OR A MERE REDUCTION IN THE LOANS AND ADVANCES TO THE EXTENT OF THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT WAS SUFFICIENT, THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF T HE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VITHALDAS H. DHANJIBHAI BARDANWALA V. CIT [1981 130 ITR 95], THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AD WRITTEN OFF THE IMPUGNED BAD DEBT IN ITS BOOKS BY WAY OF A DEBIT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT SIMULTANEOUSLY REDUCING THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT FROM LOANS AND ADVANCES OR DEB TORS DEPICTED ON THE ASSET SIDE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR, THE ASSESSE E WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF 1961 ACT. THIS VIEW WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE HIGH COURT WHICH CAME TO THE CONCLUSION BY PLACING RELIANCE ON A RELIED UPON JUD GMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. WIPRO INFOTECH LTD. (SEE PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK), THAT, IN VIEW OF THE INSERTION OF THE EXPLANATION VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2001, WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989, THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VITHALDAS H. DHANJIBHAI BARDANWALA (SUP RA) NO MORE HELD THE FIELD AND, CONSEQUENTLY, MERE CREATION OF A PROVISION DID NOT AMOUNT TO ACTUAL WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS, HENCE, THESE CIVIL APPEALS. 5. AT THE OUTSET, WE MAY STATE THAT, IN THESE CIVIL A PPEALS, 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 ACCOUN TING PRINCIPLES. THE SECOND QUESTION ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 7 WHICH ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IN THESE CIVIL APPEA LS IS, WHETHER IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE-BANK TO CLOSE THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT OF EA CH DEBTOR IN ITS BOOKS OR A MERE REDUCTION IN THE 'LOANS AND ADVANCES ACCOUNT' OR DEBTORS TO T HE EXTENT OF THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT IS SUFFICIENT? 6. THE FIRST QUESTION IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA. RECENTL Y, A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. V. JT. CIT [2010 320 ITR 577], [IN WHICH ONE OF US (S.H. KAPADIA, J.) WAS A PARTY] HAD AN OCCASION TO DEAL W ITH THE FIRST QUESTION AND IT HAS BEEN ANSWERED, ACCORDINGLY, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VI DE 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 AMOU NT TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE DEBTOR, THE ASSESSEE WAS STILL ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 36(1)(VII). [ SEE CIT V. JWALA PRASAD TIWARI [1953] 24 ITR 537 (BOM.) AND VITHALDA S H. DHANJIBHAI BARDANWALA V. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 95 (GUJ.)]. SUCH STATE OF LAW PR EVAILED UP TO AND INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89. HOWEVER, BY INSERTION (WIT H 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 WIL L NOT INCLUDE ANY PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT MADE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE SAID AMENDMENT INDICATES THAT BEFORE APRIL 1, 1989, EVEN A PROVISION COULD B E TREATED AS A WRITE OFF. HOWEVER, AFTER APRIL 1, 1989, A DISTINCT DICHOTOMY IS BROUGH T IN BY WAY OF THE SAID EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VII). CONSEQUENTLY, AFTER APRIL 1, 19 89, 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 CR EDITS THE ASSET ACCOUNT LIKE SUNDRY DEBTOR'S ACCOUNT, IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A WRITE OFF O F AN ACTUAL DEBT. HOWEVER, IF AN ASSESSEE DEBITS 'PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBT' TO TH E PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND MAKES A CORRESPONDING CREDIT TO THE 'CURRENT LIABILITIES AN D PROVISIONS' ON THE LIABILITIES SIDE OF THE BALANCE-SHEET, THEN IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A PROVI SION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBT. IN THE LATTER CASE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTI ON AFTER APRIL 1, 1989.' 7. ONE POINT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED. ACCORDING TO SHRI BISHWAJIT BHATTACHARYA, LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL APPEARING FOR THE DEPA RTMENT, THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VITHALDAS H. DHAN JIBHAI BARDANWALA (SUPRA) WAS PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF THE EXPLANATION VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2001, WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989, HENCE, THAT LAW IS NO MORE A GOOD LAW. ACCORDING TO THE LE ARNED COUNSEL, IN VIEW OF THE INSERTION OF THE SAID EXPLANATION IN SECTION 36(1)(VII) WITH EFF ECT FROM 1-4-1989, 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 PROV ISION 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 C ONSTITUTE ACTUAL WRITE OFF AND THAT WAS THE VERY REASON WHY THE EXPLANATION STOOD INSERTED. ACC ORDING TO HIM, PRIOR TO FINANCE ACT, 2001, MANY ASSESSEES USED TO TAKE THE BENEFIT OF DE DUCTION 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 ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 8 THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE PRESENT CASE, BESIDES DEBITING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND CREATING A PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT, THE ASSESSEE-B ANK HAD CORRESPONDINGLY/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 IN THE LOANS AND ADVANC ES OR THE DEBTORS ON THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET WAS SHOWN AS NET OF THE PROVISION 'FO R IMPUGNED BAD DEBT'. IN THE JUDGMENT 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 NO T ONLY TO DEBIT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY ALSO REDUCE LOANS AND ADVANCES O R THE DEBTORS FROM THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET TO THE EXTENT OF THE CORRESPONDING AM OUNT SO THAT, AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THE AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES/DEBTORS IS SHOWN AS NE T OF PROVISIONS FOR IMPUGNED BAD DEBT. THIS ASPECT IS LOST SIGHT OF BY THE HIGH COURT IN I TS IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD, ON THE FIRST QUESTION, THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF 1961 ACT AS THERE WAS AN ACTU AL WRITE OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS, AS INDICATED ABOVE. 8. COMING TO THE SECOND QUESTION, WE MAY REITERATE TH AT 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 E XPLAINED HEREINABOVE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE-BANK HAS NOT ONLY BEEN DEBIT ING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF THE IMPUGNED BAD DEBT, IT IS SIMULTANEOUS LY 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-EN D 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 LOA NS 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 AC COUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES OR DEBTORS AS A PRE-CONDITION FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 36(1)(VII) OF 1961 ACT. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER APPREHENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE-BANK MIGHT BE TAKING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF1961 ACT, TWICE OVER. [SEE ORDER OF CIT (A) AT PAGES 66, 67 A ND 72 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH REFERS TO THE APPREHENSIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER]. IN THI S 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 C LOSE EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT OF ITS DEBTOR, IT MAY RESULT IN ASSESSEE CLAIMING DEDU CTION 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 DEDUCT ION, 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 ARE TO BE CLOSED, THEN THE DEBTOR/DEFENDAN T IN EACH OF THOSE SUITS WOULD RELY UPON THE BANK STATEMENT AND CONTEND THAT NO AMOUNT IS DU E AND PAYABLE IN WHICH EVENT THE SUIT WOULD BE DISMISSED. 9. BEFORE CONCLUDING, WE MAY REFER TO AN ARGUMENT ADV ANCED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO SQU ARE OFF EACH INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT FAILING WHICH THERE IS LIKELIHOOD OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME F ROM ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO THE ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 9 DEPARTMENT, IN CASES WHERE A BORROWER'S ACCOUNT IS WRITTEN OFF BY DEBITING PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BY CREDITING LOANS AND ADVANCES OR DEBT ORS 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 L OANS AND ADVANCES ACCOUNT AND NOT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH WOULD RESULT IN ESCAP EMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF BY CLOSING T HE 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 F ACIE, 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 PRESE NT CASE, THAT, ON REPAYMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE AMOUNTS ARE DULY OFFERED FOR TAX. SECOND LY, ONE HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THAT, UNDER THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICE, THE ACCOUNTS OF THE RURAL BRAN CHES HAVE TO TALLY WITH THE ACCOUNTS OF THE HEAD OFFICE. IF THE REPAID AMOUNT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS IS NOT CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE HEAD OFFICE, WHICH IS ULTIMATEL Y 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 DE BT IS GREATER THAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEBT AND THE AMOUNT SO ALLOWED, THE EXCESS SHAL L 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 REPAY MENTS UNDER SECTION 41(4) OF 1961 ACT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENT ION THAT, IF THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS, THEN IT WOULD RESULT IN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMEN T. 10. FOR THE AFORE-STATED REASON, WE UPHOLD THE JUDGMEN T OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31-7-2003, AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COU RT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEALS STAND ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED B Y HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. TAINWALA CHEMICALS & PLASTICS INDIA LTD. [3 4 TAXMANN.COM 159] WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 3. IN SO FAR AS QUESTION (C) IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUN AL BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE MATT ER OF VIJAYA BANK LTD. V. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166/190 TAXMAN 257, WHEREIN IT HAS B EEN HELD THAT ONCE THE PROVISION OF DOUBTFUL DEBT HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND CORRESPONDING PROVISION HAS BEEN CREDITED OR REDUCE D FROM THE DEBTORS ACCOUNT IN THE BALANCE-SHEET, THEN, THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO WRITI NG OFF. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE RESPON DENT-ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE PROVISION OF DOUBTFUL DEBT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT AND CORRESPONDINGLY REDUCED THE ASSETS BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF UNSECU RED LOANS. ON THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO WRITING OFF OF THE DEBT. THUS, ON EXAMINATION OF FACTS IT CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDE NT-ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE LOAN AND WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT S. THE TRIBUNAL BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALSO RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT ONCE THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAS LENT ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 10 SURPLUS MONEY AND OFFERED THE INTEREST TO TAX AS BU SINESS INCOME, THEN THE ACTIVITY OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE OF LENDING MONEY IS A BU SINESS ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, THE DEBT QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VI I) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF FAC T RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE PROVISION HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF AND RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE MATTER OF VIJAYA BANK (SUPRA), WE SEE NO REA SON TO ENTERTAIN QUESTION (C). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE BINDING JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENT, WE CONCUR WITH THE STAND OF LD. AR AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED AD DITIONS. 9. RESULTANTLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL STAND DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JULY, 2018 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 25.07.2018 SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. + ,$ - , - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , ./0 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.186/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED 301, COMMERCIAL MANOR 4 TH CROSS CLIVE ROAD, MASJID (E) MUMBAI-400 009 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(2)(1) AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACCD-8064-C ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : SUNIL NATHA, LD.AR RE VENUE BY : RAM TIWARI, LD. DR C O R R I G E N D U M 1. IT IS NOTICED THAT CERTAIN UNFORESEEN TYPOGRAPHI CAL ERROR HAS OCCURRED IN THE ABOVE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINA TE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL ON 25/07/2018 WHICH ARE BEING SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIE D BY WAY OF THIS CORRIGENDUM. 2. THE RELEVANT MODIFICATIONS IN THE ABOVE ORDER AR E CARRIED OUT AS UNDER: - (A) PARA-9 OF THE ORDER READ AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.186/MUM/2017 DARSHAN ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 12 THE REVENUES APPEAL STAND DISMISSED. THE SAME IS REPLACED BY FOLLOWING WORDS: - THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STAND DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 30.07.2018 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ #$ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / #$ 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / %&'( $) , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ (+ %$ $ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR )1 , /ITAT, MUMBAI.