Zubaida Tanning Industries, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 915/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8102 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S VIDYA
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause; Bad and doubtful debts; Corroborative evidences; Right to appeal; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU R L REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER I . T.A. NO S . 915, 916 & 917 /MDS/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR S :20 0 7 - 0 8 M/S. ZUBAIDA TANNING INDUSTRIES, AKBER RIFA & CO., AP - 122, 6 TH STREET, 11 TH MAIN ROAD, AF - BLOCK, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 040. [PAN:AAA FZ0020F ] VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD XII(1), CHENNAI . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. S. VIDYA , C. A . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH , JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 14 . 0 9 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 16 . 1 1 .201 6 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH E S E THREE APPEAL S FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI IX, CHENNAI , DATED 2 7 . 03 .20 1 2 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 7 - 0 8 . THE SECOND APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 5, CHENNAI DATED 27.01.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THIRD APPE AL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 5, CHENNAI DATED 02.02.2016 FOR THE I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 2 SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO. 915/MDS/2016 2. THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED LATE BY 1470 DAYS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: AFFIDAVIT 1. I, S.FAIYAZ AHMED,PARTNER, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESI DING AT NO.30/36, NOWROJI ROAD, 11 FLOOR, CHETPET, CHENNAI - 600081, DO SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE AS UNDER: 2. I AM THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM CALLED M/S. ZUBAIDA TANNING INDUSTRIES, AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE ON THE ROLLS OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER PANO .AAAFL0020F BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON - CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI. 3. MY FIRM COMPANY RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS.54,947/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 [3] OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,12,710/ - ON 21.12.2009. 4. THEREAFTER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RE - OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND PASSED ORDER ON 27.03.2012, DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED BY HIM ON 21.12.2009. 5. I PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT BEFORE THE HONORABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE CIT WAS SERVED ON 30.03.2012. THIS AFFIDAVIT SEEKS C ONDONATION FOR THE DELAY OF AROUND 1447 DAYS. I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 3 7. I WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT APPEALABLE BEFORE THE HONORABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, I WAS CHALLENGING THE ISSUE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT[A] AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE COMPANY. NOW, I CAME TO UNDERSTAND THROUGH MY NEW CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS APPEALABLE BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. HENCE, I AM FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HO NOR WITH PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE YOU IN TIME. HENCE, I REQUEST TO YOU CONDONE THE DELAY. ON THE CONTRARY IF THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED, IT WILL RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS CASE BEING THROWN OUT AT THE THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATED. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AVERRED IN THIS AFFIDAVIT, THE DELAY MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL BE ADMITTED. 2.1 BY REFERRING TO THE ABOVE AFFIDAVIT FILED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE ORDER PASSED AND SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT APPEALABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE DU E DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL. THERE WAS NO WILFUL NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL AND PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BE CONDONED AND ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH A DELAY OF 1470 DAYS. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, NO BODY CAN BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT APPEALABLE. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONING I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 4 THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND PLEADED THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS A DELAY OF 1470 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED THE DELAY OF ONLY 1447 DAYS AND EVEN FOR THAT DELAY, NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS EMANATING FROM THE AFFIDAVI T FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED SOME REASONS IN THE NATURE OF ASSUMPTION/ MISUNDERSTANDING IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR PREFERRING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE VERY VAGUE AND NOT SUFFICIENT TO C ONDONE THE HUGE DELAY OF MORE THAN FOUR YEARS I.E. 1470 DAYS. THE LD. CIT HAS PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON 27.03.2012 . THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT TIME OF 60 DAYS FOR CONSULTATION, PREPARING APPEAL PAPERS, ETC. FOR FILING FURTHER APPEAL(S) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BUT IN THIS CASE, IT WAS SHEER NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO SIMPLY SLEPT ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT AND TOOK NEARLY FOUR YEARS TO KNOW THAT THE 263 ORDER IS APPEALABLE IS UNBELIEVABLE. IF ANYBODY ACCESS IN THE INTERNET EVEN IN 2012 ITSELF , WOULD EASILY GET THE INFORMATION AND THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO CONSULT ANYBODY ELSE . TO CONDONE THE DELAY, THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 5 APPEAL BEYOND THE STIPULATED TIME, THE AFFIDAVIT FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. OUR VIEW FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADHU DADHA V. ACIT [2009] 317 ITR 458, WHEREIN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN PROPER PLEA TO SHOW SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NEGLIGENT ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TAKEN CARE TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SLEPT OVER FOR 14 70 DAYS AND NOT EXPLAINED SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE AFFIDAVIT FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STAND DISMISSED AND NOT ADMITTED FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. I.T.A. NO. 916/MDS/20 16 5. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 21.12.2009, THE LD. CIT HAS PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 27.03.2012 TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.2009 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 30.03.2013. T HE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) PRIOR TO THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT A ND THE LD. I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 6 CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS VIZ., (I) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EFFLUENT CHARGE S AMOUNTING TO .3,06,000/ - PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT TDS UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND (II) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TOWARDS LABOUR SETTLEMENT OF .4,51,763/ - . 5. 2 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ON 26.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF .54,947/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 21.12.2009 BY DISALLOWING EFFLUENT CHARGES OF .3,06,000/ - UNDER SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT AND LABOUR SETTLEMENT EXPENDITURE OF .4,51,763/ - . 5.3 ON APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.4 ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF EFFLUENT CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE SAID CHARGES TO ANY PRIVATE CONCERN WITHOUT DE DUCTING TDS, IN FACT, I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 7 IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY PAYMENT. ACTUALLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSCRIBED TO AN ASSOCIATION OF TANNERIES FORMED FOR THE COMMON PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RECOVERY AND RECYCLING OF WATER, WHERE CENTRA L AND STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE ALSO EXTENDED FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIS JOINT VENTURE PROGRAMME. WHEN THERE IS A COMPLETE IDENTITY EXISTS BETWEEN THE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT AND ITS MEMBERS, THE ISSUE SHOULD COME IN THE AMBIT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUA LITY AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 5.5 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5.6 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIA LS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF .3,06,000/ - TOWARDS NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS FOR THE PAYMENT OF EFFLUENT CHARGES. BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. IN ITA NO. 3082 TO 3085/AHD/2010, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY TO THE MATTER IN ISSUE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS ON EFFLUENT CHARGES. I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 8 5.7 IN THIS CASE, THE ABOVE CHARGES HAS BEEN ACCRUED ON ACCOUNT OF A MONTHLY FIXED SUBSCRIPTION PAID TO AN ASSOCIATION OF TANNERIES FORMED FOR THE COMMON PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND REC OVERY AND RECYCLING OF WATER. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A TANNERY PRODUCING LEATHERS. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW STIPULATES THAT WASTE WATER/EFFLUENT GENERATED DURING THE TANNING PROCESS BE TREATED/PURIFIED TO RECOVER AND RE - USE THE WASTE WATER AND THUS PREVENT ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION. THE ASSESSEE BEING A SMALL INDUSTRY COULD NOT AFFORD TO PUT UP ITS OWN TREATMENT PLANT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER SMALL TANNERIES OF THE AREA JOINTLY POOLED IN RESOURCES AND SET UP A CENTRALIZED COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT [CETP] IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF AMBUR TANNERY EFFLUENT TREATMENT CO. LTD., WHEREIN CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE ALSO EXTENDED FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIS VENTURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SHARE OF THE CETP ARE HE LD BY THE MEMBER TANNERIES . THE ACTIVITIES AND S ERVICE OF THE CETP ARE CONFINED TO ITS MEMBERS ONLY. CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY THE MEMBERS TO THE CETP ARE USED ONLY FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF THE MANDATE OF THE CETP WHICH WAS TO PURIFY WASTE WATER AND RETURN CLEAN WATER TO ITS MEMBERS. APART FROM THE MEMBERS, NO OTHER ENTITY/PERSON DERIVES ANY BENEFIT PECUNIARY OR OTHERWISE FROM THE CETP. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO COMMERCIAL MOTIVE INVOLVED IN THE DEALINGS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE CETP. HOWEVER, BY FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) , I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 9 THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY IN THE INSTANT CASE OR NOT ACCORDING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES . THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY ONLY WHEN ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO ANY CONTRACTOR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND A SPECIFIED PERSON. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER ANY CONTRACT OR CONTRACTOR EXISTS. FURTHER, I N THIS CAS E, BEING A SMALL TANNERY, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN INDEPENDENT TREATMENT PLANT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER SMALL TANNERIES OF THE AREA JOINTLY POOLED IN RESOURCES AND SET UP A CENTRALIZED COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT BY MAKING MONTH LY FIXED SUBSCRIPTION FOR THE UPKEEP AND SUSTENANCE OF CETP, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLD EQUAL SHARE IN THE CETP AND THIS ASPECT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONFIRMED FROM THE CETP I.E., AMBUR TANNERY EFFLUENT TREATMENT CO. LTD. MOREOVER, THE STATE AND CENTRA L GOVERNMENTS HAVE ALSO EXTENDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIS JOINT VENTURE PROGRAMME. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE . HOWEVER, THE ABOVE FACT S REQUIRED TO BE VERIF IED. FURTHER THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHETHER CETP I.E., AMBUR TANNERY EFFLUENT TREATMENT CO. LTD. IS ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR DERIVING ANY BENEFIT OTHER THAN FROM THE MEMBER TANNERIES , I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 10 OTHERWISE, THE ABOVE ACTIVITY COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE TOWARDS LABOUR SETTLEMENT OF .4,51,763/ - . IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF .7,54,328/ - TOWARDS LABOUR SETTLEMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES FOR THE CLAIM. AFTER VERIFICATION OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD ABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES TO THE TUNE OF .3,02,565/ - ONLY AND THUS, HE DISALLOWED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF .4,51,363/ - . ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE SUPP ORTING EVIDENCES FOR THE BALANCE LABOUR SETTLEMENT EXPENDITURE OF .4,51,763/ - EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.1 ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BY FILING THE D ETAILS OF SETTLEMENT DUES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. COUNSEL OR I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 11 THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORDS AND ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW INCLUDING PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LABOUR COURT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SETTLED THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE LABOURS AND CLAIMED TO HAVE DISBURSED TO THE EXTENT OF .7,54,328/ - . AFTER VERIFICATION OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED .3,02,565/ - AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF .4,51,763/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES FOR THE BALANCE CLAIM. THE LD. CIT( A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED EVIDENCES FOR .4,51,763/ - AND THUS HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE FILED LIST OF WORKERS [20 WORKERS] TO WHOM SETTLEMENT DUES WERE PAID IN SUPPORT OF UNDERTAKING/ RECEIPTS DULY COUNTERSIGNED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITIES OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 91 7 /MDS/2016 7. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF .7,13,801/ - MADE TOWARDS BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 12 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESS MENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE RELEVA NT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BAD DEBTS TO THE TUNE OF .13,02,063/ - . BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS INCLUDING EVIDENCE FOR THE STEPS TAKEN TO RECOVER UNRECOVERED EXPORT SALES AMOUNTING TO .4,87,796/ - AND LEDGER COPIES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 OF ADVANCES GIVEN TO EX - EMPLOYEES AMOUNTING TO .1,00,466/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS OF .5,88,262/ - [ .4,87,796/ - + 1,00,466/ - ]. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE DETAILS TOWARDS BALANCE BAD DEBTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED .7,13,801/ - [ .13,02,063/ - - .5,88,262/ - ] AND BROUGHT TO TAX. 7.1 THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE DETAILS OF NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON, LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND THE EFFORTS MADE TO RECOVER THE UNRECOVERED DEBTS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7.2 BY FILING THE DETAILS OF DEBTORS , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO . 9 15 - 91 7 /M/ 16 13 7.3 WE HAVE CONSIDER ED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE RECORDS INCLUDING PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAGE 47 ONWARDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DETAILS OF DEBTORS WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS TO THE TUNE OF .13,02,063/ - . THUS, WE REMIT THE MA TTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 915/MDS/2016 IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEALS IN I.T.A. NOS . 916 & 917/MDS/2016 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCO UNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 16 . 1 1 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.