1932 (4) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Privy Council restores order on bad debts deduction, emphasizing factual determination.

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus S.M. Chitnavis

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus S.M. Chitnavis - [1932] 6 ITC 453 (PC), [1932] 2 Comp. Cas. 464 Issues Involved:1. The right of the assessee to deduct bad debts.2. The determination of when a debt becomes bad.3. The authority of the Income-tax Officer versus the discretion of the assessee in declaring debts as bad.Detailed Analysis:1. The Right of the Assessee to Deduct Bad Debts:The primary issue revolves around the assessee's right to deduct bad debts from his total income for tax purposes. The assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 17,983-11-6 for bad debts, of which Rs. 7,481-13-9 was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and subsequently affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner ruled that the assessee had the option to declare debts bad when he found them irrecoverable, and the Income-tax authorities could not deprive him of this option. However, the Privy Council disagreed, stating that such a deduction is necessarily allowable but must relate to losses incurred in the relevant year. The Council emphasized that 'the losses must be losses incurred in that year' and that 'a debt, which had in fact become a bad debt before the commencement of a particular year, could not properly be deducted in ascertaining the profits of that year.'2. The Determination of When a Debt Becomes Bad:The second issue concerns the determination of when a debt is considered bad. The Judicial Commissioner had opined that the assessee is the sole arbiter in deciding whether a debt is bad and when it became bad. The Privy Council refuted this view, stating that 'whether a debt is a bad debt, and, if so, at what point of time it became a bad debt, are questions of fact, to be decided in the event of dispute by the appropriate tribunal, and not by the ipse dixit of any one else.' The Council clarified that the age of the debt and whether it is statute-barred are relevant factors but not decisive on their own.3. The Authority of the Income-tax Officer versus the Discretion of the Assessee:The third issue addresses the conflict between the authority of the Income-tax Officer and the discretion of the assessee in declaring debts as bad. The Judicial Commissioner had ruled that the assessee's decision in this matter is final, asserting that 'the assessee must for obvious reasons be the sole arbiter of his own rights and privileges as regards the business he conducts in his own interest.' The Privy Council rejected this stance, stating that the assessee does not have a decisive voice in this matter. The Council concluded that 'the question which was referred to the Court in relation to bad debts should have been answered as follows: 'The assessee has no 'option' of declaring debts bad. Whether a debt is bad and when it became bad, are questions of fact to be determined in case of dispute not by the assessee or by the exercise of any 'option' on his part, but by the appropriate tribunal upon a consideration of all relevant and admissible evidence.''Conclusion:The Privy Council allowed the appeal, restoring the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 25th April 1927, insofar as it relates to the Rs. 7,481-13-9. The Council emphasized that the determination of bad debts is a factual question to be decided by the appropriate tribunal and not solely by the assessee. There were no costs awarded for this appeal.