Appeal granted for rental income reversal and sales rep advance, some expenses disallowed. Order pronounced 10/07/2020.

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT, Range-1

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT, Range-1 - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 23,27,520/- on account of prior period expenses.
2. Classification and treatment of prior period expenses under the Income Tax Act versus the Companies Act.
3. Verification of the reversal of entries in the books of accounts.
4. Allowability of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Rs. 23,27,520/- on account of prior period expenses:
The assessee, a limited company engaged in the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, claimed a deduction of Rs. 23,27,520/- for prior period expenses in the assessment year 2006-07. The prior period expenses included sales promotion expenses, interest on debtors, and cost recovery related to earlier periods. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these expenses, stating that there was no evidence to justify that these expenses were crystallized in the year under consideration. The AO also noted the absence of bills and vouchers supporting these expenses and pointed out that the auditor had classified these as prior period expenses.

2. Classification and treatment of prior period expenses under the Income Tax Act versus the Companies Act:
The assessee argued that the financial year under the Companies Act was extended to 13 months (up to 30 April 2005), whereas the assessment year under the Income Tax Act was 12 months (April to March). Therefore, the expenses recorded in April 2005 should not be considered as prior period expenses under the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) and the AO, however, upheld the classification of these expenses as prior period expenses based on the auditor's report and the lack of supporting evidence.

3. Verification of the reversal of entries in the books of accounts:
The ITAT had previously remanded the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with directions to verify the assessee’s claim regarding the reversal of entries. The assessee submitted that the interest reversal on debtors and rental income reversal were recorded in the books of accounts within the same financial year and thus should not be considered as prior period expenses. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as ledger accounts, to support the claim of reversal of entries.

4. Allowability of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act:
The tribunal analyzed whether the disallowed expenses could be claimed as bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal noted that for bad debts to be deductible, they must be written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts. The assessee failed to provide clear evidence that the bad debts were offered to tax in earlier years and written off in the current year. However, the tribunal found that the reversal of rental income of Rs. 2,50,000/- was justified based on documentary evidence and directed the AO to delete the addition. Similarly, the tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 35,927/- given as an advance to a sales representative as a business loss, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting deductions for the reversal of rental income and the advance given to the sales representative, while disallowing the other prior period expenses due to lack of sufficient evidence. The order was pronounced in open court on 10/07/2020.