ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Nilgiri Financial Consultants Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9311 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI E BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO. 4/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2012-13] THE I.T.O VS. M/S NILGIRI FINANCIAL CONSULTANT S LTD WARD 18 (3) M -62 & 63, 1 ST FLOOR, NEW DELHI CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI PAN NO: AABCD 0033 C [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.07 .2019 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAUTAM JAIN, AD V SHRI LALIT MOHAN, CA REVENUE BY : MS. RINKU SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: WITH THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 6, DELHI DATED 20. 10.2016 PERTAINING TO A.Y 2012-13. 2 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE R EVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4. 07 CRORES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT]. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT D URING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 4,07,53,938/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIF Y ITS CLAIM AND IN ITS REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT HAD ALR EADY BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND SO HAS BEEN REDUCE D FROM THE INCOME. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,07,53,938/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A ) AND EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND HAS MADE THE ADDITION . IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C OMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS SUCH. 3 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND DETAILED SUBMISS IONS AND DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF TRF LIMITED 190 TAXMAN.COM 391, THE LD. CIT(A) DELE TED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIN DINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FACTS ON RECORD SHOW THAT DURIN G THE F.YS 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED SERVICES TO ITS CLIENT MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED [MAX] AND OFFERED THE S AME AS INCOME AND PAID TAXES THEREON. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO RECOVER THE WHOLE AMOUNT FROM MAX AND ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF RS. 4,07,53,938/- WAS WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED THAT IT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. HENCE, NO IN TERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A). 4 9. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO AGITATED THAT THE CIT(A) HA S ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF TH E RULES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE SI NCE THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE TRANSMITTED TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER BY THE CIT(A) CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT AND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, IN HIS REMAND REPORT, ADMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 28.10.201 4 THAT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS WERE BEFORE HIM . THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDER ED FRESH/ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 04/DEL/2017 IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.0 7.2019. SD/- SD/- [ SUCHITRA KAMBLE ] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 04 JULY, 2019 VL/ 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 0 8 . 0 7 . 2 0 1 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER