SKF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3362/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0331 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHADR
• Assessee Lawyers: M D THAKUR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -EBENCH MUMBAI , , , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RAM LAL NEGI,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A./2811/MUM/2014, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DY. CIT-4(3, 6TH FLOOR NO.649, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020. VS. M/S. SKF INDIA LTD. 5TH , FLOOR, MGM BUILDING NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI-400 002. PAN:AAACS 0684 H ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ./I.T.A./3362/MUM/2014, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ./I.T.A./1427/MUM/2015, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S. SKF INDIA LTD. MUMBAI-400 002. PAN:AAACS 0684 H VS. DY. CIT-4(3, 6TH FLOOR NO.649, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJESH OJHA-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M.D. THAKUR / DATE OF HEARING: 31.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.08.2017 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER,DATED 28.02.2014,OF THE CIT(A )-8,MUMBAI THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE FILED CROSS APPEAL S FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR(AY.)2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPEAL FOR THE NEXT AY.AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL, SO, WE ARE ADJUDICATING ALL T HE APPEALS TOGETHER.ASSESSEE- COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANU -FACTURING AND SALE OF BALL BEARINGS,ROLLER BEARINGS AND TEXTILE MACHINERY COMPONENTS,FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME ON 27/09/2008,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.252.63 CRORES,FOR THE AY.2008-09. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143 (3) OF THE ACT, ON 20/12/2011,DETERMINING THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.254.78 CRORES FOR THAT AY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL STATING THAT SAME WAS LEGAL IN NATURE.WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY IT DOES N OT REQUIRE ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTS,THEREFORE,WE ADMIT THE SAME. 2811M/14;3362/14 & 1427/15 SKF INDIA LTD. 2 ITA/2811/MUM/2014: 3. THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL, RAISED BY THE AO, IS ABOUT CLUB EXPENSES OF RS. 20.17 LAKHS.IT WAS BROUGHT OVER NOTICE THAT IDENTICAL ISS UE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL,WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2006-07(ITA/7723/MUM /2010). WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IT READS AS UNDER: 5. GROUND NO.2, RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF CLUB EXP ENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.4,34,062. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 199091, 199192, 19992000 & 200506 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE PERUSE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ONE OF THE ABOV E ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E., ASSESSMENT YEAR 200506 AND FIND THAT PARA5 OF THE SAID ORDER DEALS WITH THIS GROUND AND ITS ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN PARA5.2 WHICH IS EXTRACTE D AS UNDER: 5.2 THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF OTIS ELEVATORS CO. LTD. REPORTED IN 195 ITR 682 (BOM.) WHICH HAS B EEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASS ESSMENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 7.CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SETTLED NATURE OF THE ISSUE , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES GROUND NO.2 IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED. A CCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE AO. ITA/3362/MUMBAI/2014: 4. FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL(GOA-1,2AND ADDITIO NAL GROUND)DEAL WITH DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF,AMOUNTING TO RS.9.70 LAKHS,U/ S.36(2)(I)OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 27.79 LAKHS AS BAD DEBTS I N COMPUTATION OF INCOME,THAT THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF PERTAINED TO ITS TRADE DEBTORS.TH E AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE EXPLANATION IN THAT REGARD.VIDE ITS LETTERS DATED 1 4/10/2011AND 05/12/2011,THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WOULD CREATE A PROVISION FOR DOUB TFUL DEBTS EVERY YEAR AND WOULD WRITE THEM OFF BY UTILISING THE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS S O CREATED,THAT THE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS WOULD BE ADDED BACK IN THE COMPUTATION OF INC OME,THAT THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF WOULD BE CLAIMED SEPARATELY IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT SUBMITTED A DETAILED LIST OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF.IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.14.13 LAKHS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF 2811M/14;3362/14 & 1427/15 SKF INDIA LTD. 3 INVOICES PERTAINING TO SUCH DEBTS(OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS).FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.13.47 LAKHS,IT SUBMITTED INVOICE DETAI LS AND THE REASON FOR WRITE-OFF.HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFER ED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT REMAINING BAD DEBTS OF RS. 13.47 LAKHS HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YE AR, AS REQUIRED U/S.36 (2).FINALLY, HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,47,779/-UNDER THE HEAD BAD DEBTS DISALLOWED. 5 .AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA)AND MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSI ONS. IT ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM. THE FAA ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC ES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(4) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES,1962 AND CALLED FOR A REMAN D REPORT FROM THE AO.AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL,THE FAA HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE THE INVOICE AMOUNT FOR WRITE-OFF OF THE AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.3.77 LAKHS,THAT FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT IT HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE,THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF T HE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW.HE DIRECTED THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDINGLY.IN THE RESULT, THE FAA CON FIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.9,70, 126/-. 6 .DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE SAME METHOD FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS,THAT THE DISPUTED AMOUNT REPRESENTED TRADE DEBTORS,THAT CLAIM MADE BY THE AS SESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 OF THE ACT,THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THAT THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF CONSTITUTE D 0.016% OF THE REVENUE,THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 27.79 LAKHS WAS ACCOUNTED FOR AS SALES REVENUE IN THE PAST AND WAS DULY OFFERED TO TAX. HE REFERRED TO THE CASE OF DWARIKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPM ENT AND CHAINS PRIVATE LTD (325 ITR 211),HARSHAD J CHOKSI(25TAXMANN.COM.567) AND INDIAN TECHNOLOGIES(P)LTD. (78TAXMANN.COM.232). THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR) SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE FAA. 7 .WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL,WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2006-07(SUPRA).WE ARE REPRODUCING PARAGRAPHS 8-12 OF THE ORDER AND SA ME READS AS UNDER: 8.GROUND NO.3,RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF BAD AND DO UBTFUL DEBT WRITTEN OF AMOUNTING TO RS. 61, 00, 460. 9.BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE N ARRATED THE FACTS LEADING TO THE WRITE OFF OF THE BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT AND SUBMITTE D THAT SUCH WRITE OF IS NOW ALLOWED 2811M/14;3362/14 & 1427/15 SKF INDIA LTD. 4 BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN TRF LTD. V/S CIT, [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC), AND MANY OTHERS. FURTHER, HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WERE ULTIMATELY WRITTEN OFF IN THE P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS PER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED OVER THE YEARS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUPPORTED THE ABOVE STATEMENT BY FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE APPELLANT CREATES PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBT FUL DEBTS WHICH IS DISALLOWED IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME.REFER COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME FOR AY.S 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 AND 2006-07. THE APPELLANT HAD WRITTEN OFF BAD DEBTS BY DEBITING THE PROVISION ACCOUNT CREATED IN EARLIER YEARS AND MAKING CREDIT TO RELEVANT DEBTOR ACCOUNT. FOR METHOD OF AC COUNT OF BAD DEBTS AND RECONCILIATION FOR PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS REFER LE TTER TO CIT(A) DATED 4 AUGUST 2010. THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT ULTIMATE LY RESULTS IN DEBITING BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF TO P&L ACCOUNT. THESE BAD DEBTS A RE CLAIMED SEPARATELY BY THE APPELLANT IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME. REFER COMPU TATION OF INCOME FOR AY.S 2003-04, 2004- 05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07. PROVIS ION CREATED EARLIER IS DISALLOWED AND THEREFORE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS DOES NO T RESULT IN DOUBLE DEDUCTION.IN CASE THE APPELLANT HAD WRITTEN OFF THE BAD DEBTS BY DEBITING IT TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, PROVISION CREATED FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS CREATED IN EARLIER YEARS WILL HAVE TO BE REVERSED. THE IMPACT ON PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN BOTH CASES IS DE PICTED IN SEPARATE STATEMENT. IT IS EVIDENCE FROM THE STATEMENT THAT T HE IMPACT ON PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF ANY OF THE MET HOD FOLLOWED (AS PER THE APPELLANT OR THAT AS PER THE CIT(A)) IS SAME. 10.FINALLY,THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, RENDERED IN ARROW COATED PRODUCTS LTD. V/S ACIT, 22 TAXMAN.COM 31 (MUM.). HE ALSO FURNISHED STATEMENT SHOWING IMPACT ON PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME ON DIFFERENT METHODS OF WRITEOFF OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. 11. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DUTIFUL LY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR EXAMINING THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES WRITE OFF ON THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR VERIFICATION B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ARROW COATED PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) WAS DELIVERED SUBSEQUENT TIME AND THE SAME WAS NOT AVAI LABLE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. WE, ACCO RDINGLY, REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND ALLOW ING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH , IN ARROW COATED PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). CONSEQUENTLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OR DER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER,WE DIRECT TH E AO TO CARRY OUT VERIFICATION IS DIRECTED IN THE ORDER FOR THE AY.2006-07 BY THE TRIBUNAL.FIR ST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN PART. 8. SECOND EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL(GOA-3 TO 6)DEAL W ITH DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF UN- RECONCILED AIR DATA,AMOUNTING TO RS.70.85 LAKHS.DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED A SERVICE INCOM E OF RS.6.74 CRORES, THAT THERE WAS 2811M/14;3362/14 & 1427/15 SKF INDIA LTD. 5 DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME SHOWN BY IT AND THE TRANSA CTIONS APPEARING IN THE AIR/ITS, AMOUNTING TWO RS. 3.05 CRORES.THE AO DIRECTED THE A SSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES.THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE OF RS . 2.12 CRORES.THEREFORE,THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1.10 CRORES TO THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. 9 .DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,BEFORE THE FAA,TH E ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 62.40 LAKHS AND RS. 4.79 LAKHS VID E ITS LETTERS DATED 22/08/2012 AND 08/10/2013 RESPECTIVELY.IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS,T HE AO ALLOWED A SUM OF RS.39.66 LAKHS. AFTER CONSIDER -ING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL,THE FAA DIRECTED THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.70,85,540/- (RS.1,10,52,398/- (- ) RS. 39, 66, 855/-). 10 .BEFORE US,THE AR ARGUED THAT THE ITS/AIR DATA PROV IDED BY THE AO REFLECTED ONLY NAMES OF THE PARTY ADDRESSES AND AMOUNTS,THAT IT HAD REQU ESTED THE AO TO SUPPLY ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE LIKE INVOICE NUMBERS,DATES,CHEQUE NUMBERS,THAT THE AO DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE DIF FERENCES,THAT THE SERVICE INCOME OF RS. 6.74 CRORES EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE INCOME AS PER THE ITS OF RS. 3.05 CRORES, THAT NON- RECONCILIATION OF AIR SHOULD NOT LEAD TO AN ADDITIO N TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT IT WAS FOR THE AO TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED FURTHER AMOUNTS THAT WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS,THAT THE AO HAD TO PRODUCE SO ME EVIDENCE IN THAT REGARD,THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. HE RELIED UPON THE CASE OF S GANESH(ITA/527/ MUM/ 2010)THAT WAS UPHELD BY THE HO NORABLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 1930 OF 2011. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON SIX OT HER CASES DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT REGARD. HE INFORMED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD BEEN D EALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FOR THE AY.2007-08(ITA/1666/MUM/2012,DA TED 22/05/2015)AND FOR THEAY.2011- 12(ITA/1420/MUM/2016,DATED 16/ 09/2016).THE DR LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 11. WE FIND THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY. 2007-08(SUPRA),THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 18. GROUND NO.3, RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNRECONCILED ITS DATA AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,99,690. 19. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AIR DATA AMOUNTING TO RS. 65,93,498,THE ASSESSEE SUCCESSFULL Y RECONCILED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 52,93,803 THAT CONSTITUTE 80% OF THE ENTIRE TRANSAC TION. REGARDING THE BALANCE OF RS. 12,99,690, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE TH E NECESSARY DETAILS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE SAME. IT IS A SETTLED ISS UE THAT MERELY NON RECONCILIATION OF THE AIR DATA AND DOES NOT LEAD TO SUSTAINABLE ADDIT ION IN THE ASSESSMENT. IN OUR 2811M/14;3362/14 & 1427/15 SKF INDIA LTD. 6 OPINION, THERE IS A NEED FOR REMANDING THIS ISSUE T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSE D BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO FURNISH REQUISITE SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR RECONCILIAT ION. NORMALLY,THE AIR DATA IS GENERIC AS WELL AS GENERAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO FIRST EXAMINE THE SPECIFIC OF THE TRANSACTION THAT REQUIR E RECONCILIATION. THUS, GROUND NO.3, IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE,WE RESTORE BACK TH E ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION,WHO WILL FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN FOR THE AY.2007- 08(SUPRA).SECOND EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PART LY ALLOWED. 12. SEVENTH GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT SHORT CREDIT OF T DS. THE AR STATED THAT ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2.65 LAKHS WERE SU BMITTED VIDE LETTERS DATED 28/06/2010 AND 12/12/2011. 12.1. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO ALLOW THE CREDIT ACCORDINGLY.GOA-7 IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE,IN PART. ITA/1427/MUM/2015 (AY :2009-10) : 13. BAD DEBTS DISALLOWANCE AND RECONCILIATION OF AIR IN FORMATION ARE THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. FOLLOWING OUR ORDER FOR EARLIER YEAR WE DECIDE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.SECOND E FFECTIVE GROUND IS ALLOWED IN PART IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE AY.S ARE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH AUGUST, 2017. , 2017 SD/- SD/- ( / RAM LAL NEGI ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED :04.08.2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 2811M/14;3362/14 & 1427/15 SKF INDIA LTD. 7 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.