ACIT-LTU, V. UNION BANK OF INDIA,

MA 85/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5312 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JIT ENDRA YADAVDR
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 80HHC; 263; 10

Judgement Text

1 MA NOS.84 & 85/MUM/2010 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D MANMOHAN, VP & SHRI R K PANDA, AM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NOS. 84 & 85/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 5104 & 5105/MUM/2004 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00 & 2000-01) THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX CNTRE-1 MUMBAI VS M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA 239 VIDHAN BHAVAN ROAD NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 21 (APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) & CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.88 & 89/MUM/2010 M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA 239 VIDHAN BHAVAN ROAD NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 21 VS THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX CNTRE-1 MUMBAI (APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) PAN AAACU0564G ASSESSEE BY: SHRI C NARESH REVENUE BY: SHRI JITENDRA YADAV/DR O R D E R PER R K PANDA: THE ABOVE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST SUCH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 9. 5.2008 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS 5104/MUM/2008 AND 5105/MUM/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999- 00 AND 2000-01 RESPECTIVELY. 2 IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BOTH THE Y EARS HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WHI LE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADR AS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BEARDSEL LTD REPORTED IN 244 ITR 256 ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS ONLY PROVISION 2 MA NOS.84 & 85/MUM/2010 TOWARDS AN UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND HENCE WAS CO VERED UNDER CLAUSE ( C) OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 115JA (2) OF THE ACT. 2.1 IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DA TED 9.5.2008 ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS USHA MARTINE INDUSTRIES LTD REPORTED IN 104 ITD 249. 3 NOW, THE REVENUE, THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATIONS, HAS STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 115JA BY FINA NCE ACT, 2009 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1998, THE TRIBUNAL ER RED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO ADD PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL D EBTS AND FOR RURAL ADVANCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 115JA OF THE I T ACT. THEREFORE , THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE MODIFIED. 3.1 THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES F THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE HONBLE ITAT ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO NOT TO ADD PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND PROVISION FOR RURAL ADVANCES FOR THE PURP OSES OF SECTION 115JA OF THE I T ACT 1861. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE I TAT ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAI NST THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE BY TAKING THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS: THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT S IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JA IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT WAS PASSED ON 9 TH DAY OF MAY 2008 WHEREAS RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 115JA BY FINANCE AC T, 2009 CAME INTO STATUTE BOOK SUBSEQUENT THERETO AND HENCE THE LAW O N THE DATE WHEN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER PASSED WAS N FAVOUR OF THE RESPOND ENT BASED ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS HCL COMET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES L TD (305 ITR 409)(SC). RELIANCE IS PLACED FOR ABOVE VIEW IN APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD 295 ITR 282 (SC) FOLLOWED BY MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN RALLIS INDIA VS 3 MA NOS.84 & 85/MUM/2010 ACIT (MUM) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENTS C OMPLETED BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF LAW PREVAILING ON THAT DATE CANNO T BE A MATTER OF REOPENING/S 147 OR ERRONEOUS U/S 263 OF THE I T ACT . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTION, IF THE P ROVISION MADE TOWARDS BAD DEBTS IS DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFI TS, AT LEAST THE BAD DEBTS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DED UCTION IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FIL ED BY THE ACIT LTU, MUMBAI NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED. 5 THE LD DR REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF M K VENKATACHALAM VS ITO & ANOTHER REPORTED IN 34 ITR 1 43(SC) SUBMITTED THAT ORDER WHICH WAS PROPER AND VALID WHEN IT WAS MADE CAN BE SAID TO DISCLOSE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IF IT BECOMES ERRONEO US BY VIRTUE OF SUBSEQUENT RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT OF LAW. SINCE IN THE INSTA NT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO ADD PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND PROVISION FOR RURAL ADVANCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 115JA AND SINCE THERE IS SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 2009 WITH RETR OSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1998, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT CITED SUPRA, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CONTAINS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. HE, ACCORDINGLY, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5.1 THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BASE D ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF USHA MATINE INDUSTRIES LTD (SUPRA). THE ISSUE WAS ALSO SUBSEQUENTLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HCL COMET SYSTEMS AND S ERVICES LTD REPORTED IN 305 ITR 409 AND THE ORDER DATED 23.9.2008. THE SECTIO N WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ( NO.2) ACT 2009 DATED 19.8.2009 BY INSERTING EXPLANATION (G) TO SEC. 115JA(2) WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.19 98 WHEREBY THE AMOUNTS SET ASIDE AS PROVISIONS FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ANY ASSET WAS TO BE ADDED WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PASSED ON 9.5.2008 WHEREAS THE RETROSPECTIVE AM ENDMENT TO SEC. 115JA BY FINANCE ACT 2009 CAME TO THE STATUTE BOOK SUBSEQUEN T THERE TO AND HENCE LAW ON THE DATE WHEN THE TRIBUNAL PASSED THE ORDER WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. 4 MA NOS.84 & 85/MUM/2010 5.2 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD 295 ITR 282(SC), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE SAID DECISION IN A 263 MATTER HAS HELD THAT SUB SEQUENT AMENDMENT EVEN THOUGH RETROSPECTIVE WILL NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 263. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF RALLIES INDIA VS ACIT(MUM) (2010-TOIL-173-HC-MUM/IT), HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE ASSES SMENTS COMPLETED BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF LAW PREVAILING ON THAT DATE CANN OT BE REOPENED U/S 147 BECAUSE OF CHANGE OF THE LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFF ECT. 5.3 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS GTL LTD IN MA NO.746/MUM/2009, A CO PY OF WHICH IS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDEN TICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MA FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 5.4 REFERRING TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SUDHIR S MEHTA REPORTED IN 265 ITR 548(BOM), HE SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENT AMEN DMENT OF LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT CANNOT BE THE GROUND FOR RECTI FICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF AMENDMENT. 6 IN HIS ALTERNATE CONTENTION, HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE PROVISIONS MADE TOWARDS BAD DEBTS IS DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE BO OK PROFIT, AT LEAST THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION SI NCE THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF IS NOT A PROVISION MADE FOR ANY DIMINUTION IN THE VALU E OF ANY ASSET AS DECIDED. 6.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS BEARDSELL LD REPORTED IN 244 ITR 256 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T IN THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN HELD THAT ANY IRRECOVERABLE DEBT WRITTEN OFF IS ALLOWABLE IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 7 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE INSTANT CASE FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF USHA M ATINE INDUSTRIES LTD (SUPRA). HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO ADD BA D AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND PROVISION FOR RURAL ADVANCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC . 115JA OF THE I T ACT. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DATED 9.5.2008. THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 115JA WERE AMENDED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 2009 WITH RETROSP ECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1998. 5 MA NOS.84 & 85/MUM/2010 THEREFORE, THE QUESTION THAT ARISES IS WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS PASSED PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF THE PROVISIONS WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT CAN BE RECTIFIED OR NOT. 7.1 WE FIND AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS BOMBAY DYEING& MFG COMPANY LTD REPORTED IN 34 ITR 143(SC): THE FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON THE COMPANY BY AN ORDER, DATED OCTOBER 9, 1952, WHEREUNDER THE ITO GAVE CREDIT FOR A SUM OF RS. 50,063 BEING INTEREST AT TWO PER CENT. ON THE ADVANCE TAX PAID BY THE COMPANY UNDER S. 18A(5) OF THE INDIAN I.T. ACT, 1922. THIS ORDER BECAME FINAL. AFTER THE MAKING OF THIS ORDER, PARLIAMENT ENACTED THE I. T. (AMEND.) ACT, 1953, WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1952. THIS AMENDMENT ACT, INTER ALIA, INSERTED A PROVISO TO S. 18A(5), THE EFFECT O F WHICH WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO INTEREST, NOT ON THE WHOLE OF THE ADVANCE TAX SO PAID BY HIM, BUT ONLY ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ADVANCE TAX SO PAID AND THE AMOUNT OF TAX DETERMINED ON REGULAR ASSESSM ENT. IN VIEW OF THIS RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT, THE ITO, EXERCISING HIS PO WERS UNDER S. 35 OF THE 1922 ACT, RECTIFIED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST TO WHICH THE COMPANY WAS HELD ENTITLED TO, AND MADE A DEMAND IN A SUM OF RS. 29,446. ON A WRIT OF PROHIBITION FI LED BY THE COMPANY, THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ISSUED THE RULE WHEREUPON THE REV ENUE WENT IN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT. IT WAS FIRSTLY ARGUED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION GIVEN TO THE AMENDMENT ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO AFFECT COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS. IT WA S ARGUED THAT ONLY IF ANY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESS EE'S INCOME FOR A PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO APRIL 1, 1952, WERE PENDING AT THE TIME THE AMENDMENT ACT WAS PASSED, THEN ALONE THE PROVISO TO S. 18A(5) CAN BE INVOKED BUT NOT IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE AMENDMENT ACT WAS PASS ED. THIS ARGUMENT WAS NEGATIVED BY THE SUPREME COURT HOLDING THAT, IN VIEW OF THE RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION GIVEN TO THE ENACTMENT, THE PRINCIPLE OF FINALITY OF THE ORDERS OR THE SANCTITY OF THE EXISTING RIGHTS C ANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY INVOKED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE NEXT ARGUMENT URGED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED UPON THE DISTINCTION IN THE LANGUAGE BETWEEN S. 13 OF THE AMENDMENT ACT AND SS. 3(2), 7(2) AND 30(2) OF THE A MENDMENT ACT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE LATTER PROVISIONS EXPRESSLY EMPOWER ED THE ITO TO REVISE AND RECTIFY THE ORDERS ALREADY PASSED BY HIM WHEREA S S. 13, WHICH INTRODUCED THE AFORESAID PROVISO, DOES NOT SO REQUI RE OR EMPOWER THE ITO TO RECTIFY HIS ORDERS. THIS ARGUMENT WAS MET BY THE SUPREME COURT BY POINTING OUR THAT THE LETTER SET OF PROVISIONS OF T HE AMENDING ACT WERE INTENDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEES AND HENCE THE LEGISLATURE MAY 6 MA NOS.84 & 85/MUM/2010 HAVE THOUGHTS IT NECESSARY TO CONFER ON THE ITO SPE CIFIC AND EXPRESS POWER TO REVISE HIS ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE AM ENDMENTS IN QUESTION. BUT, IT WAS POINTED OUT, THE DISTINCTION IN THE LAN GUAGE OF BOTH THE PROVISIONS IS NOT AVAILABLE TO HOLD THAT THE RETROS PECTIVE OPERATION GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION WAS NOT INTENDED TO AFFE CT CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS. THEN THE SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED ITSEL F TO THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE EXPRESSION MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD ', IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EFFECT AND MEANING OF RETROSPECTIVEL Y OF A STATUTE. IT OBSERVED AT PP. 149 AND 150 AS UNDER: ' AT THE TIME WHEN THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER APPLIED H IS MIND TO THE QUESTION OF RECTIFYING THE ALLEGED MISTAKE, THERE C AN BE NO DOUBT THAT HE HAS TO READ THE PRINCIPAL ACT AS CONTAINING THE INSERTED PROVISO AS FROM APRIL 1, 1952. IF THAT BE THE TRUE POSITION, THEN THE ORDER WHICH HE MADE GIVING CREDIT TO THE RESPONDENT FOR RS. 50,603- 15-0 IS PLAINLY AND OBVIOUSLY INCONSISTENT WITH A S PECIFIC AND CLEAR PROVISION OF THE STATUTE AND THAT MUST INEVITABLY B E TREATED AS A MISTAKE OF LAW APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IF A MISTA KE OF FACT APPARENT FROM THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CA N BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 35, WE SEE NO REASON WHY A MISTAKE OF LAW WHICH IS GLARING AND OBVIOUS CANNOT BE SIMILARLY RECTIFIED. PRIMA FACIE IT MAY APPEAR SOMEWHAT STRANGE THAT AN ORDER WHICH WAS GOO D AND VALID WHEN IT WAS MADE SHOULD BE TREATED AS PATENTLY INVA LID AND WRONG BY VIRTUE OF THE RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF THE AME NDMENT ACT. BUT SUCH A RESULT IS NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN THE LEGAL FICTION ABOUT THE RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF THE AMENDMENT ACT. IF, A S A RESULT OF THE SAID FICTION, WE MUST READ THE SUBSEQUENTLY INSERTE D PROVISO AS FORMING PART OF SECTION 18A(5) OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT AS FROM APRIL 1, 1952, THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT THE ORDER IN QUESTION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID PROVIS O AND MUST BE DEEMED TO SUFFER FROM A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE R ECORD. THAT IS WHY WE THINK THAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WAS JUSTIF IED IN THE PRESENT CASE IN EXERCISING HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 35 AND R ECTIFYING THE SAID MISTAKES. ' 8 WE FIND THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SINCE IN NONE OF THE CASES THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN CONS IDERED. AS REGARDS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAX INDIA LTD (SUPRA), THE ISSUE WAS U/S 263 OF THE I T ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WHICH WAS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80HHC WAS AMENDED ELEVEN TIMES AND DIFFERENT VIEWS EXISTED WHEN THE AO PASSE D THE ORDER AND THE 7 MA NOS.84 & 85/MUM/2010 MECHANICS OF THAT SECTION HAD BECOME SO COMPLICATED OVER THE YEARS; THEREFORE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT UNDER THAT CONTEXT HAD HE LD THAT THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT OF SECTION 80HHC, EVEN THOUGH RETROSPECTI VE WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CA SE, THERE IS NO SUCH COMPLICATION NOR THE ISSUE IS U/S 263. THEREFORE, I N OUR OPINION THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RELIED ON BY THE LD AR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THAT CASE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE HAVE TO BE ALLOWED. 10 SO FAR AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THE SAME HAVE TO BE DISMISSED AS NON-MAINTAINA BLE SINCE THE LAW PERMITS FILING OF CROSS OBJECTIONS ONLY AGAINST AN APPEAL A ND NOT AGAINST ANY MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BAD DEBTS ACTUALLY WRITT EN OFF SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT, WE FIND TH E ABOVE GROUND IS THROUGH THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED AGAINST THE MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE HOLD ING THE SAME TO BE NON- MAINTAINABLE. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE REJECTED. 11 IN THE RESULT, THE MAS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 19 TH , DAY OF NOV 2010. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( D MANMOHAN D MANMOHAN D MANMOHAN D MANMOHAN ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT ( (( ( R K PANDA R K PANDA R K PANDA R K PANDA ) )) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED19TH, NOV 2010 RAJ* 8 MA NOS.84 & 85/MUM/2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI