RABO INDIA FINANACE P. LTD, V. ACIT 1(3),

MA 700/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6461 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARIGOVIND SINGH
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 700/MUM/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3325/MUM/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S. ROBO INDIA FINANCE P. LTD. ACIT - 1 (3) FORBES BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR ROOM NO. 540/564, 5TH FL OOR CHARANJIT RAI MARG VS. AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD FORT, MUMBAI 400001 MUMBAI 400020 PAN - AARCR 6065 R APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: SHRI DHANESH BATNA/ SHRI MADHAV KHANDELWAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HARI GOVIND SINGH O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE SEEK S MODIFICATION OF THE WORD ALLOWED TO CLAIMED IN PARA 11 OF THE ORDER. 2. THE ISSUE IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF BAD DEB TS AND THIS WAS CONSIDERED VIDE PARA 6 IN GROUND NO. 3 ONWARDS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS WERE WRITTEN OFF LATER AND CLAIMED IN LATER YEARS AS BAD DEBTS AND HE HAS NO O BJECTION IF THE MATTER REQUIRES EXAMINATION BY THE A.O. HOWEVER, WHILE DEC IDING THE ISSUE INADVERTENTLY IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT RECOVERED THE INTEREST BUT ALSO SUBSEQUENTLY WRITTEN OFF THE PRIN CIPAL AMOUNT ALSO AND THE SAME WERE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, AS PE R THE CHART FURNISHED. 3. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS ONLY CLAIMED THE AMOUNT AS STATED IN PARA 10 OF THIS ORDER, HENC E THE WORD ALLOWED IN PARA 11SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO CLAIMED . MA NO. 700/MUM/2010 M/S. ROBO INDIA FINANCE P. LTD. 2 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION AND FOUND THAT T HERE WAS A MISTAKE IN STATING THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE ALLOWED, W HEREAS THE AMOUNTS WERE ONLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE THE SECOND SENTENCE IN PARA 11 SHOULD BE READ AS UNDER: - THE BASIS OF THIS FINDING IS NOT AVAILABLE WHEREAS IT WAS ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT WITH REFERENCE TO THE 8 NPAS CLASSI FIED, THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY NOT RECOVERED THE INTEREST BUT ALSO SUBSEQUENT LY WRITTEN OFF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ALSO AND THE SAME WERE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS, AS PER THE CHART FURNISHED. THE ORDER IS MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, MA OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH APRIL 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 13 TH APRIL 2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) XXI, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT XXI, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.