M/s. Vodafone Essar(Gujarat) LimiteD, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-8, Ahmedabad

MA 138/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9199 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

M.A. NO. 138/ AHD/2012 IN ITA NO.1999/A HD/2008 . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003- 04 . 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, A HMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) M.A. N O.138/AHD/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T. A. NO.1999/AHD/2008 (ASST. YEAR: 2003-04) VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LTD., 6 TH FLOOR,SAKAR-II, NERAR ELLIS BRIDGE, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, AJANTA COMMERCIAL CENTRE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHEMDABAD . (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACF 1190P APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHINAL SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAHULKUMAR, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 21- 09- 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-11-2012 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 17-7-2012 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA N O.1999/AHD/2008 M.A. NO. 138/ AHD/2012 IN ITA NO.1999/A HD/2008 . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003- 04 . 2 DATED 11-5-2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND TH E SAME WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 21-9-2012. 2. IN THE MISC. APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS INTERA LIA SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF HONBL E KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HOKOGWA INDIA LTD.(SUPRA) , THE HONBLE BENCH MEMBERS DECIDED THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF VWL. HO WEVER, THE HONBLE BENCH MEMBERS WHILE PROVIDING RELIEF TO VWL HAS IN PARA 11 OF PAGE 7 OF THE ORDER DATED 11 TH MAY,2012 MENTIONED THE FOLLOWING: 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS; THE CASE LAWS CITED AND PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DE BTS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CHARGED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH,2003. IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2003 OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT T HE PROVISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS HAS BEEN REDUCE D FROM THE GROSS DEBTORS AND THE NET SUNDRY DEBTORS ARE SHOWN AS ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THUS THE PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS CANNOT BE TERMED AS A PROVISION FOR LIABILITY BUT IS IN THE NATURE OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSET. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CASE OF YOKOGWA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. YOKOGWA INDIA LTD . (SUPRA) WE DO NOT FID ASSESSMENT YEAR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. HENCE, WHILE GIVING THE RELIEF, YOUR HONOURS H AVE MENTIONED THAT PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS IS IN THE NATURE OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSET. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE DECISION OF H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN VIJAYA BANK (SUPRA) AND HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YOKOGWA (SUPRA), YOUR HONOURS OUGHT TO STA TED AS UNDER:- M.A. NO. 138/ AHD/2012 IN ITA NO.1999/A HD/2008 . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003- 04 . 3 THUS, PROVISIONS FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS, WHEN SHOWN AS A REDUCTION FROM DEBTORS IN THE BALANCE SHEET, AS IN THE CASE OF CWL , AMOUNTS TO ACTUAL WRITE-OFF FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BANK AND NOT PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF THE ASSET. 3. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECA LLED AND THE ABOVE MISTAKE BE RECTIFIED. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW O F THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BANK (323 ITR 166) AND HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YOKOGWA INDIA L TD. (2012) 204 TAXMAN 305, THE ORDER BE AMENDED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE D THE M.A. AND SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMIS SED BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND THERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECOR D WHICH REQUIRES RECALLING OR AMENDMENT TO THE ORDER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO GON E THROUGH THE ORDER DATED 11-5-2012. THE LD. A.R. COULD NOT POINT OUT A NY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER THAT REQUIRES CORRECTION. HIS PLEA IS THAT THE ORDE R BE MODIFIED IN THE WAY SUGGESTED IN M.A. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTI ON OF THE LD. A.R. FOR THE REASON THAT HE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER BUT HAS SUGGESTED SOME MODIFICATION IN THE LIGHT OF APEX CO URT DECISION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE REJECT THE M.A. FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. M.A. NO. 138/ AHD/2012 IN ITA NO.1999/A HD/2008 . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003- 04 . 4 7. . IN THE RESULT M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 - 11- 2012. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 21 - 9 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 7 / 11 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S - -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT - -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER