RADHAKRISHNA FOODLAND CARRIERS P.LTD, THANE V. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5106/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2991 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M A GOHEL
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 I.T.A. NO.5106 /MUM/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.5106/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) RADHAKRISHNA FOODLAND CARRIERS (SINCE AMALGAMATED RADHAKISHNA FOODLAND PVT LTD), RADHAKRISHNA HOUSE MAJIWADE VILLAGE ROAD, MAJIWADE, THNE 400 601 VS DY.CIT, RANG-8(3), MUMBAI PAN :AABCR8854K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M.A. GOHEL RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAKESH RANJAN DATE OF HEARING : 20-06-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 -06-2016 O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA, AM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-18, MUMBAI [HE REINAFTER CALLED CIT(A)] AGAINST ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DT 28-2-2013 FOR A. Y. 2010-11. 2 . THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THI S APPEAL IS THAT ADDITION MADE FOR A SUM OF RS.13,212,237 ON ACCOUNT OF PROVI SION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS 2 I.T.A. NO.5106 /MUM/2014 WRITTEN BACK BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONGLY ADDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WRONGLY CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT(A) ALSO. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, WH EN THE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBT WAS CREATED, THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED AS AN EXPENSE, BUT IT WAS VOLUNTARILY ADDED BACK IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET. O UR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN ON THE COMPUTATION SHEET FOR A.Y. 2009-10 TO CONFIRM T HIS FACT. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN ON THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES VIDE LETTER DT 19-2-2013 WHEREIN COMPLETE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE ACCOUNTI NG ADJUSTMENT MADE IN THIS REGARD AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE DUE TO M ISS-APPRECIATION OF FACTS. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF LO WER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE GONE THOUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PAPER BOOK SHOWN TO US CONTAINING REQUISITE DETAILS AND EVIDEN CES. IT IS NOTED THAT IN A.Y. 2009-10, NO CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOU NT OF PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE A RISES NO OCCASION FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR, WHEN PROVISIO N FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS HAS BEEN WRITTEN BACK BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE CLAIM OF ONLY DEBTS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. IN OUR OPINION, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO N ON APPRECIATION OF FACTS CORRECTLY. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN WRONGLY MADE AS P ER FACTS, AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 3 I.T.A. NO.5106 /MUM/2014 ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CONCL USION OF HEARING. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 29 TH JUNE, 2016 PK/- COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE , D-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES