ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD., MUMBAI V. ACIT. CENT, CIR.-29, MUMBAI

ITA 5786/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71125 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURINDER JIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAGAR GLOSAR; SRS PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 133A; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NOS. 5663 & 5786/M/2011 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07& 2008-09) ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD. SHRI PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 5, JOLLY BHAWAN, NO.2, GR. FLOOR, 7, NEW MARINE LINES, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400 020 / VS. ASST. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AADCA 9058 Q ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) ! $ / APPELLANT BY : SRS. PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA & SHRI SAGAR GLOSAR '#! % $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURINDER JIT SINGH & '() % *+ DATE OF HEARING : 26.08.2013 ,-. % *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.09.2013 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-40, MUMBAI (C IT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 14.06.2011, FOR TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.Y.) 2006-0 7& 2008-09, DISPOSE THE ASSESSEES APPEALS CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S.14 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE SAID ORDER. 2 ITA NOS.5663&5786/M/2011 (A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09) ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD. VS. ASST. CIT 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS INQUIRED BY THE BENCH OF THE LEARNED DR IF THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL; THE FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY HAVING GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF IN APPEAL, AND TO WHICH HE CONFIRMED IN THE NEGATIVE, I.E., AS BEING NOT SO, AND UPON WHICH THE HEARING IN THE MATTER WAS PROCEEDED WITH. THE APPEALS RAISING COMMON ISSUES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE, ACCORDINGLY, BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON, CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. OPENING THE ARGUMENTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE L EARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, THAT I T IS NOT PRESSING THE LEGAL GROUND/S CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF SEARCH AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN PURSUANCE THER EOF, AS PROJECTED PER GROUND NOS. 1.0 AND 1.1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND GROUND 1.0 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, MAKING AN ENDORSEMENT TO T HIS EFFECT ON THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. 4.1 AS REGARDS THE SECOND GROUND FOR BOTH THE YEARS , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION IS THE SAME , EVEN AS THERE IS A SMALL DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT, BEING AT RS.16,79,150/- A ND RS.16,00,000/- FOR AY 2006-07 AND A.Y. 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSES SEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH CREDIT IN ITS BOOKS FOR RS.16.79 LACS, INTRODUCED ON THE BASIS OF CASH VOUCHER AS RECEIPTS, SO THAT T HE SAME CAME TO BE ADDED U/S. 68. FURTHER, ON THE SAID AMOUNT BEING REPAID B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, I.E., THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT T O AY 2008-09, THE REVENUE HAS ADDED THE SAME U/S. 69C. THE WHOLE PREM ISE ON WHICH THE SAME STANDS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS THAT THE DIRECTOR IN HIS STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A OFFERE D AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 16,00,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 4.2 THE LD. DR WOULD RELY ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW, EVEN AS IT WAS CONFIRMED BY HER THAT THE VOUCHERS FOR RECEI PT OF CASH PERTAIN TO THE 3 ITA NOS.5663&5786/M/2011 (A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09) ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD. VS. ASST. CIT PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2006-07, AND THERE IS NOTHING APART FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION F OR AY 2008-09. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US CONCEDED TO THE ADDITION QUA UNEXPLAINED CASH RECEIPT/S FOR RS.16,79,150/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07; IT BEING UNABLE TO EXPLAIN CASH CREDITS TO THAT EXTENT IN TE RMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION FOR A.Y. 2008-09, HO WEVER, WE FIND LITTLE MERIT IN THE REVENUES CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY M ATERIAL LEADING TO THE INFERENCE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME, I.E., SEPARATE AND APART FROM RS.16.79 LACS MADE AND SUSTAINED FOR A.Y. 2006-07, FOR THAT YEAR, I.E., A.Y. 2008-09. THE DIRECTOR MAY HAVE OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME, WH AT IS THOUGH REQUIRED TO BE SEEN IS THE REASON FOR WHICH HE DOES SO. IF T HE BASIS OF THE SAME, AS EXPLAINED TO US DURING HEARING BY THE LD. AR, TO NO REBUTTAL BY THE LD. DR, IS THE SAID CASH VOUCHERS, ADDITION QUA WHICH STANDS ALREADY MADE FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THERE IS NO SCOPE OR MERIT IN SUSTAINING A NOTHER ADDITION FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT ANY CASE IN THE MATTER. WE, ACCORDINGLY, HAVE NOT HESITATION IN DIR ECTING ITS DELETION. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMING AND DELETING THE ADD ITION FOR THE TWO SUCCESSIVE YEARS RESPECTIVELY. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGL Y. 6. THE THIRD ISSUE, WHICH ARISES FOR A.Y. 2008-09, IS IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM FOR AUDIT FEES, CONSULTANCY FEES AND BAD DEBT S WRITTEN OFF, AT RS.11,236/-, RS. 70,000/- AND RS.36,70,138/- RESPEC TIVELY. THE BASIS OF THE SAID DISALLOWANCES IS THAT THE ASSESSEES FINAL ACC OUNTS (P&L A/C FOR THE YEAR ENDING AND BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31/3/2008), AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 09.07.2008, ARE AT VARIANCE WITH THE F INAL AUDITED BALANCE- SHEET, FORMING PART OF THE RETURN OF INCOME (ROI), AND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT RETURNED ITS INCOME FOR THE SAID YEAR, QUA THE SAID SUMS. THE SAID EXPENSES WERE THEREFORE CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE T O HAVE BEEN BOOKED BY 4 ITA NOS.5663&5786/M/2011 (A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09) ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD. VS. ASST. CIT THE ASSESSEE AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND, ACCORDINGLY, D ISALLOWED, AND WHICH STANDS CONFIRMED ON THE SAME BASIS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 7.1 THE REVENUES CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS, PO ST SURVEY, SUITABLY MANIPULATED ITS ACCOUNTS, CLAIMING INFLATED EXPENSE S, I.E., TO THE EXTENT OF THE REPORTED VARIANCES, INASMUCH AS ITS BALANCE-SHE ET AS FOUND DURING SURVEY WAS ONLY FINAL, AS APPARENT FROM THE SAME BE ING NOT ONLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BUT ALSO THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES THEREIN WITH REFERENCE TO THE AUDITED FINAL STATEMENTS. THE AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY VARIATION IN ANY EXPE NDITURE, THOUGH MAY RESULT IN A DIFFERENT TREATMENT BEING ACCORDED TO A N EXPENDITURE ALREADY INCURRED AND BOOKED. SURELY, IT IS NOT A CASE OF AN ERROR OR OMISSION BEING RECTIFIED BY THE AUDITORS. AGAIN, SMALL OR MINOR DI FFERENCES ARE UNDERSTANDABLE, PARTICULARLY WHERE THE UNAUDITED AC COUNTS BEAR THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE, WHILE IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS THE LD. DR WOULD SUBMIT BEFORE US, THERE IS NO EXPENDITURE EITHER UNDER THE HEAD CONSULTANCY FEES OR SUNDRY DEBTS WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNTS FOUND DU RING SURVEY. TRUE, THE SAID ACCOUNTS WERE NOT AUDITED, BUT THE AUDITOR DOE S NOT WRITE, AND ONLY VERIFIES THE ACCOUNTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNDERLY ING DOCUMENTS, AND THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTING STANDARDS, W ITH A VIEW TO ENSURE THAT THEY REFLECT A TRUE AND FAIR STATE OF AFFAIRS FOR THE PERIOD TO WHICH THEY RELATE. THE AUDITOR CANNOT OF HIS OWN MAKE CHANGES IN THE ACCOUNTS, AND CAN AT BEST SUGGEST PROPER AND SUITABLE EXPLANATION TOWARD (SOME OF) THE ESTIMATES MADE, OR THE ACCOUNTING POLICIES FOLLOWED IN FINALIZING THE ACCOUNTS, OR QUALIFY HIS REPORT WHERE NOT IN AGREEM ENT WITH THE ASSESSEE- AUDITEES TREATMENT OF A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION/S I N ITS ACCOUNTS, STATING THE REASON/S FOR HIS VIEW/S. THE MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE 5 ITA NOS.5663&5786/M/2011 (A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09) ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD. VS. ASST. CIT CLEARLY DELIBERATE, WITH A VIEW TO SUPPRESS INCOME, ON ITS ACTUAL PROFIT COMING TO LIGHT PER THE UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEME NTS FOUND IN SURVEY. THE ASSESSEES CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS THAT IT IS NOWHERE PRECLUDED BY LAW IN PASSING ENTRIES AS ON 31.03.200 8 AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR (ON THAT DATE), I.E., AS LONG AS THERE IS BASI S THERETO. THE FINAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN SURVEY WERE UNSIGNED. THE PROCE SS OF FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS CAN ONLY BE REGARDED AS COMPLETE ONLY ON T HE SIGNING OF THE BALANCE-SHEET. THERE IS NO BASIS OR SUBSTANCE IN TH E REVENUES ALLEGATION OF THE IMPUGNED DIFFERENCES BEING TAINTED WITH MALA FIDES . 7.2 IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS LITTLE MERIT I N THE CASE OF EITHER PARTY BEFORE US. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS PRIMARILY FACTUAL, I.E., WHET HER THE EXPENDITURE IN THE IMPUGNED SUMS STANDS, IN FACT, INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE RELEVANT YEAR OR NOT. WHY, EVEN AS OBSERVED DURING HEARING ITSELF, AN EXPENDITURE E VEN NOT BOOKED COULD BE CLAIMED WHERE ACTUALLY INCURRED AND OTHERWISE DEDUCTIBLE ? THE PASSING OF THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ONLY IMPLIES RECOGNIZING THE SAME IN ACCOUNTS. ALSO, THERE IS NO BAR PER SE IN PASSING THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES PERTAINING TO A TRANSACTION DURING THE YEAR AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR, AND WHAT WOULD BECOME RELEVANT, I.E., FROM THE VERIFICATION STAND POINT, IS THE GENUINENESS OF THOSE TRANSACTIONS AND MATTER S INCIDENTAL THERETO; VIZ. HOW AND WHY THEY REMAINED TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE FIRST PLAC E; THE REASON FOR NON-PAYMENT EVEN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING Y EAR, ETC. AS SUCH, WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS OF FINDING AN UNAUDITED THOUGH CO MPLETE SET OF FINAL ACCOUNTS IN THE INSTANT CASE, SUGGEST OF CERTAIN CHANGES HAVING BEE N EFFECTED WITH A VIEW TO DEPRESS PROFIT, SO AS TO CREATE A DOUBT ABOUT THE VERACITY OF THOSE CHANGES; THE ONLY RECOURSE WITH THE REVENUE IS TO VERIFY THE SAME WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNDERLYING FACTS. TRUE, THE FUNCTION OF THE AUDITOR IS TO AUDIT THE ACCOUNTS AS MAINTAINED AND REPORT THEREON. THAT IS STATING THE POSITION BROADLY, AND DOES NOT EXCLUDE HIS FINDING NON-BOOKING OF EXPENDITURE, OR OF IT HAVING NOT BEEN BOOKED IN THE PROPER SUM, SO THAT AN ADJUSTMENT IN ITS RESPECT IS WARRANTED, SO THAT WHAT OF IS OF REL EVANCE IS, AS AFORE-MENTIONED, THE 6 ITA NOS.5663&5786/M/2011 (A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09) ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD. VS. ASST. CIT GENUINENESS OF THE MATTER OR OF THE SAID ADJUSTMENT S. THE QUESTION OF QUALIFYING HIS REPORT BY THE AUDITOR WOULD ARISE ONLY WHERE THE AUDITOR A ND THE AUDITEE CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THEIR DIFFERENT STANDS, AND NOT WHERE THESE ARE REC ONCILED, INCLUDING BY PASSING ACCOUNTING ENTRIES, LEADING THUS TO CHANGES IN THE UNAUDITED ACCOUNTS. WHETHER THE SAID RECONCILIATION OR THE APPROPRIATE COURSE IS BY WAY OF DISCLOSURE OR ADJUSTMENT/S, WHICH WOULD ORDINARILY DEPEND ON THE MATERIALITY OF THE T RANSACTION/S, IS FOR THE ENTERPRISE AND ITS AUDITOR TO DECIDE. THE MATTER, WE MAY EMPHASIZE , IS PURELY FACTUAL, AND ON WHICH WE FIND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE NOT STATED ITS CASE, RESU LTING IN THE LD. CIT(A) ISSUING A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE P ROPER CLARIFICATION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED CLAIM/S. IT HAS EVEN NOT AS MUCH AS STATED THE DATE ON WHICH THE BALANCE-SHEET FOR THE YEAR WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRIOR TO BEING GIVEN TO THE AUDITORS FOR THEIR OPINION THEREON. IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIAT ED THAT INDEPENDENT AND DE HORS THE REVENUES CASE, WHICH HAS NOT FOUND OUR FAVOUR, THE ONUS TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIMS PER THE ROI IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE. 7.3 CONTINUING FURTHER, WE FIND THAT TWO OF THE THR EE AMOUNTS INVOLVED, I.E., QUA AUDIT FEES AND CONSULTANCY FEES, REPRESENT CONTRACTUAL OB LIGATIONS. THE AUDIT FEE, OR ITS PARAMETERS, IS FINALIZED AT THE TIME OF THE APPOINT MENT (OR REAPPOINTMENT) OF THE AUDITOR, I.E., THE LAST ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM). IN FAC T, THE DIFFERENCE BEING MARGINAL APPEARS TO US TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF AUDIT EXPENSES, T HOUGH ONLY VERIFICATION COULD LEAD TO A FIRM STATEMENT IN THE MATTER. THE CONSULTANCY FEE I S, AGAIN, CONTRACTUAL, SO THAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE VERIFIED WITH REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT CONTRACT, AND THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING THEREFROM, VIZ., THE RENDERING OF THE SERVICES, ETC ., AND WHICH COULD ONLY BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE/S ADDUCED OR LED BY THE A SSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF (RS.36.70 LACS), THE LAW, POST AM ENDMENT BY DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, W.E.F. 01.04.1989, IT IS BY NOW WELL SETTLED, ONLY MANDATES THE WRITE OFF OF A DEBT AS IRRECOVERABLE IN HIS ACCOUNT S TO ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE A CLAIM IN ITS RESPECT. THE SAME, THUS, IS ITSELF AN EVIDENCE OF T HE DEBT BEING, IN THE VIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT, NOT RECOVERABLE, AND WHICH IS DEEMED SU FFICIENT, SO AS TO BE ADMISSIBLE AND 7 ITA NOS.5663&5786/M/2011 (A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09) ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD. VS. ASST. CIT ALLOWED AS AN EXPENSE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, I.E., SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF SECTION 36(2). THE PASSING OF THE ENTRY IN THE ACCOUNTS, AND ITS T IMING, THUS ASSUMES VITAL SIGNIFICANCE . WE HAVE ALREADY CLARIFIED THAT AN ACCOUNTING ENTR Y AS ON THE YEAR-END (AS, SAY, 31.03.2008) COULD BE PASSED, OR FOR THAT MATTE R FOR ANY DATE DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, EVEN AFTER THE SAID DATE (31.03.2008). THE ON LY CONDITION OR QUALIFICATION IS THAT THE SAME MUST PERTAIN TO AND REPRESENT THE CONDITIONS E XISTING AS ON THAT DATE. THIS IS AS THE ACCOUNTS ARE SEGREGATED ON A YEAR-WISE BASIS. EVEN THE INFORMATION OBTAINED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR COULD ALSO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, BUT ONLY SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO AN ASSESSMENT OF AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNTS RELATING TO THE CONDITIONS AS THEY EXIST AS AT THE YEAR-END. THE RE ASON FOR THE SAME IS SIMPLE: THE ACCOUNTS BEING CLOSED YEAR-WISE, AND THE BALANCE-SH EET REPRESENTS THE STATE OF AFFAIRS OBTAINING AS ON THAT DATE, SUBJECT OF-COURSE TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE (AS ON THE DATE OF PREPARATION OF THE BALANCE-SHEET), SO THAT IT REPRE SENTS THE BEST ESTIMATE POSSIBLE IN LIGHT THEREOF. IT IS ONLY IN EXTRA-ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES , WHERE THE SUBSTRATUM OF THE CONCERN, VIZ. THE GOING CONCERN PREMISES, IS IMPACTED AND CO MES UNDER DOUBT THAT, EVEN THOUGH OCCURRING AFTER THE BALANCE-SHEET DATE (31.03.2008) , THAT THE SAME ARE FACTORED INTO THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON THAT DATE, CLEARLY EXPLAINING T HE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES AND SPECIFYING THEIR FINANCIAL IMPACT/ADJUSTMENT THEREOF IN THE NO TES TO THE ACCOUNTS. WHAT, THEREFORE, IS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE DECIS ION BY THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBT/S BECOMING BAD, THOUGH MADE SUBSEQUENT TO 31.0 3.2008, IS BASED ON EVIDENCE/S OR EVENT/S PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT THERETO. IN THE LATTER CASE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WOULD BE VALID ONLY WHERE THE EVENT/S ENABLES ASSESSMENT OF THE PO SITION AS OBTAINING ON 31.03.2008, AND NOT OTHERWISE. THE NATURE OF THE EVENTS OR THE ACCOUNT BEHAVIOR POST THE YEAR-END (31.03.2008) WOULD, THEREFORE, REQUIRE BEING EXAMIN ED TO SEE IF THEY HAVE IN ANY MANNER INFLUENCED THE DECISION FOR THE IMPUGNED WRITE OFF. A DECISION GUIDED BY THE SAID EVENT/S, BEING AFTER THE YEAR-END, COULD ONLY BE RECOGNIZED AFTER ITS OCCURRING, WHILE WHERE IT IS REFLECTIVE OF A STATE OF AFFAIRS AS AT THE YEAR-END , THE ENTRY WOULD RELATE BACK TO THE YEAR- END . RELIANCE IN THIS CONTEXT IS DRAWN TO ACCOUNTING S TANDARD (AS) 4 [CONTINGENCIES AND EVENTS OCCURRING AFTER THE BALANCE-SHEET DATE] ISSU ED BY THE ICAI, ALSO RELIED UPON BY 8 ITA NOS.5663&5786/M/2011 (A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09) ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD. VS. ASST. CIT THE ASSESSEE. WHERE THERE ARE NO SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , SO THAT THE DECISION FOR WRITE OFF IS BASED ON THE EVENTS UP TO THE RELEVANT YEAR-END (31 .03.2008), THE FACT OF PASSING THE ENTRIES AFTER THE SAID DATE, BECOMES IRRELEVANT. 7.4 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE MATTER BEING ESSE NTIALLY FACTUAL, IS ACCORDINGLY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY TO DECIDE THE SAME IN LIGHT OF OUR FOREGOING OBSERVATIONS, BY ISSUING DEFINITE FINDING S OF FACT, AND AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, INCLUDING ON THE SATISFACTION OF S. 36(2) ( QUA THE CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS). WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 IS PARTLY ALLOWED, AND THAT FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 0.*1 '230* % '23. (-3 2006-07 4 4/ ( 5 *, 6 '23. (-3 2008-09 4 7% 89: 4 ( 5 * % * ;< ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 SD/- SD/- (I. P. BANSAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ) MUMBAI; =' DATED : 20.09.2013 . ' . ./A.K.PATEL. PS & ROSHANI, SR. PS ! ' #$%& '&$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT 3. & >* ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. & >* / CIT - CONCERNED 5. ?(@A '*'B2 , + B2. , & ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. AC3 D) / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, ) / (* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ) / ITAT, MUMBAI