Tribunal reverses CIT(A), upholds AO's disallowance of bad debts provision. Appeal delay condoned.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision and upholding the AO's disallowance of the provision for bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) as the assessee failed to meet the required conditions for deduction. The delay in filing the appeal due to the Covid-19 lockdown was condoned, referencing a Supreme Court judgment extending the limitation period. The Tribunal distinguished the applicability of the Vijaya Bank decision and rejected the alternative claim under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) for bad and doubtful debts.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Vijaya Bank v. CIT.
4. Alternative claim under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act.

Summary:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Revenue's appeal was delayed by 4 days due to the Covid-19 lockdown. The Tribunal condoned the delay, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Miscellaneous Petition No. 21 of 2022, which extended the limitation period for all proceedings due to the pandemic.

2. Deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) for Bad and Doubtful Debts:
The core issue was whether the assessee's provision for bad debts qualifies for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii). The assessee had made a provision for bad debts by debiting the P&L account and reducing the sundry debtor's account in the balance sheet. The AO disallowed the claim, asserting that the provision did not meet the criteria of actual write-off as required under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2).

3. Applicability of the Supreme Court Decision in Vijaya Bank v. CIT:
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank v. CIT, which permits deduction if the provision for bad debts is reduced from the sundry debtor's balance in the balance sheet. However, the Tribunal noted that the Vijaya Bank decision pertained specifically to banking companies and distinguished it from the present case. The Tribunal emphasized that the legal position post-1989 requires an actual write-off, not just a provision.

4. Alternative Claim under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee argued that if the provision for bad debts is not deductible under Section 36(1)(vii), it should be considered a business loss under Section 28. The Tribunal rejected this alternative claim, citing the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd., which held that if an expenditure falls under specific provisions (Sections 30 to 36), it cannot be claimed under the general provision of Section 37 or 28.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and upheld the AO's disallowance of the provision for bad debts, stating that the assessee did not meet the conditions prescribed under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2). The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed.

---