Tribunal allows appeal, directs deletion of addition for alleged sales, approves bad debts claim.

Mediacom Media India Pvt. Ltd Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – Circle 6 (3), Mumbai

Mediacom Media India Pvt. Ltd Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – Circle 6 (3), Mumbai - TM Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 33,80,000/- related to alleged sales to DLF Services Limited.
2. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 6,22,705/- related to provisions for sundry balances written off.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 33,80,000/-:

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) discovered through AIR information that an amount of Rs. 33,80,000/- was credited to the assessee by DLF Services Limited, with corresponding TDS of Rs. 76,591/-. The assessee had claimed the TDS but did not show the receipt as income. The AO issued a show cause notice, and the assessee replied that the TDS was claimed by mistake on a contract that was never executed and ultimately canceled. However, the assessee failed to provide a confirmation letter from DLF Services Limited to support this claim. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 33,80,000/- to the assessee's total income.

On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee's claim of TDS indicated that the corresponding income had accrued. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not provide provisional bills or any documents to substantiate that the contract was canceled and no services were rendered. The CIT(A) emphasized that the mere claim of TDS without corresponding income could not be justified.

The Tribunal found that the AO relied solely on AIR information without further verification. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's argument that income from a canceled contract could not be considered as accrued income. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not verify the claim with DLF Services Limited and that the TDS claim was reversed by the assessee upon reconciliation. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 33,80,000/-.

2. Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 6,22,705/-:

During assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had debited provisions for sundry balances written off amounting to Rs. 6,22,705/- in the profit and loss account, which were not added back in the return of income. The assessee admitted this mistake and offered the amount to be added to the income. However, on appeal, the assessee claimed that the amount was not a provision but actual bad debts written off due to non-payment of service tax by ONGC and RBI.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, noting that the assessee provided contradictory statements and failed to furnish complete supporting documents, including accounts of ONGC and RBI. The CIT(A) held that the AO's decision to add the amount was justified as the assessee's explanations were inconsistent.

The Tribunal examined the details provided by the assessee, including the audited balance sheet and the schedule of operating and general expenses. The Tribunal found that the amount of Rs. 6,22,705/- was indeed part of miscellaneous expenses and represented actual bad debts written off, not provisions for doubtful debts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to allow the claim of bad debts amounting to Rs. 6,22,705/-.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 33,80,000/- and allowing the claim of bad debts of Rs. 6,22,705/-. The order was pronounced in the open court on 16.08.2016.