2013 (8) TMI 1200 - AT - Income Tax

Bad debts claim allowed under section 36(1)(vii), lease rent liability treated as current expense, capital gains addition deleted under section 45(4)

M/s. Radhu Palace Versus Addl. CIT, Range 36, New Delhi

ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on three issues. First, bad debts claim was allowed under section 36(1)(vii) as debts were written off in ... Disallowance of Bad debts claim - HELD THAT:- We hold that all these debts were very old and outstanding since long in the accounts of the assessee firm. The bad debts are allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Bad debts or part of the debts are allowable when these were revenue in nature. The nature of the debt was not doubted by the revenue. The only apprehension casted was that assessee has not carried out any effort to recover the amounts. These debts were in respect of business carried out by the assessee which also continued during the relevant previous year. These debts have been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee in those relevant years. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT], after the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.04.1989, in order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. In the assessee’s case, this condition of written off has been fulfilled. Claim treated as prior period expenses - AR submitted that the assessee was given leasehold land by DDA in 19787 and starting paying lease rent every year since 1983. The assessee was depositing lease rent on its own estimate basis - HELD THAT:- We have also perused the relevant papers in the paper book. The facts of the case show that this outstanding dues of lease amount has been worked out by the DDA during the year when the assessee approached the authorities to convert the leasehold land to freehold. Prior to that, the lese rent being paid by the assessee on its estimate basis. Thus, the actual quantification of the liability was during the year itself. The auditor’s report that this expenditure was related to the prior period is only relevant to the extent that while calculating the lease rent to convert the leasehold land to the freehold land. The actual working of the lease rent for the past years for which the assessee has paid on his own estimate basis has been considered. Considering these facts in view, we find no merits in the addition, therefore, we set aside the orders of the authorities below with this issue also. Long term capital gain u/s 45(4) - new partners have joined the firm and these have brought in capital which credited to their respective capital account - increase in the capital resulting from the revaluation was added to the capital account in each of the existing partners - HELD THAT:- Revenue authorities were not justified in making and sustaining the addition. Therefore, we set aside the orders of authorities below on this issue and allow the relief to the assessee on this ground. The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:1. Whether the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 3,70,892/- was justified, specifically whether the assessee discharged the onus to prove that the debts had become bad and irrecoverable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the claim of Rs. 1,20,816/- as prior period expenses relating to lease rental paid to the DDA on conversion of leasehold land into freehold land was allowable under section 43B of the Act.3. Whether the addition of long-term capital gains of Rs. 5,80,04,265/- under section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of revaluation of assets at the time of induction of two new partners was sustainable, including the applicability of section 45(4) to the facts of the case.4. Whether the CIT (Appeals) erred in not disposing of the ground relating to charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Act.Issue 1: Disallowance of Bad Debts (Rs. 3,70,892/-)Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 allows deduction of bad debts or part thereof, provided they are written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. The Supreme Court in TRF Limited vs. CIT (323 ITR 397) clarified that post amendment w.e.f. 01.04.1989, it is not mandatory for the assessee to establish that the debt has become irrecoverable beyond doubt; the writing off in the books suffices. The Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. (292 ITR 339) and CIT vs. Autometers Ltd. (292 ITR 345) reinforced that the requirement is the honest judgment of the assessee reflected by writing off the debt, and the absence of recovery efforts is not fatal if the debt is genuinely irrecoverable.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the debts were old and outstanding since 1998-1999, supported by ledger accounts. The revenue's sole objection was lack of evidence of recovery efforts. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the nature of debts was not disputed and they were revenue in nature, having been accounted for in earlier years. The Tribunal relied on the cited case laws to hold that the writing off of debts in accounts suffices for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(vii).Key Evidence and Findings: Ledger accounts showing long-standing outstanding amounts and the assessee's books reflecting write-off of these debts.Application of Law to Facts: Given the debts were written off and were revenue in nature, and the law does not require proof of recovery efforts post amendment, the Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue relied on the absence of recovery efforts; the Tribunal rejected this as contrary to settled law.Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and allowed the bad debts deduction.Issue 2: Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses (Rs. 1,20,816/-) relating to Lease RentalLegal Framework: Section 43B of the Income-tax Act allows deduction of certain expenses only when actually paid. The question was whether the lease rental paid to DDA on conversion of leasehold land into freehold land, quantified during the year, was allowable.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the lease rent liability was crystallized only in the year under consideration upon conversion application to DDA. Prior payments were on an estimated basis. The actual quantification and payment occurred during the relevant year, thus satisfying the condition of actual payment under section 43B.Key Evidence and Findings: Documentation showing the conversion application, calculation of dues by DDA, and payment during the year.Application of Law to Facts: Since the liability was quantified and paid during the year, the expense was allowable in that year under section 43B.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue relied on the view that the expense related to prior periods; the Tribunal found this irrelevant as the liability crystallized only in the relevant year.Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the disallowance and allowed the claim.Issue 3: Addition of Long-Term Capital Gains under Section 45(4) on Revaluation of Assets at Admission of New PartnersLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act taxes capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets by way of distribution on dissolution of a firm or otherwise. The provision applies when there is a transfer of assets from the firm to partners, either on dissolution or otherwise. Key precedents discussed include:CIT vs. A.N. Naik Associates (Bombay High Court) - held that transfer of assets to a retiring partner attracts section 45(4).CIT vs. Kunnamkulam Mill Board (Kerala High Court) - held that admission of new partners or reconstitution of firm without transfer of ownership does not attract section 45(4).Delhi Industries & Enterprises vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) - held that section 45(4) applies only on transfer of assets, not on mere reconstitution.ITO vs. Fine Developers (ITAT Mumbai) - confirmed that no capital gains arise if no asset is transferred to retiring or new partners.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that in the present case, two new partners were admitted with capital contributions, but no asset of the firm was transferred to them. The land remained owned by the firm. The revaluation of land increased the capital accounts of existing partners but did not constitute a transfer of capital asset to partners. The Tribunal distinguished the cited decision of Bombay High Court as involving transfer to a retiring partner, which is not the case here.Key Evidence and Findings: Partnership deed, capital accounts of partners, balance sheet showing ownership of assets by the firm.Application of Law to Facts: Since no transfer of asset occurred, section 45(4) was not attracted. Admission of new partners and revaluation of assets alone do not trigger capital gains under section 45(4).Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue relied on case law involving asset transfer on retirement or dissolution; the Tribunal found these distinguishable and inapplicable.Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the addition and allowed the relief to the assessee.Issue 4: Non-Disposal of Ground Relating to Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C & 234DLegal Framework: Sections 234A to 234D mandate charging of interest for defaults in payment of advance tax and other related defaults.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that charging of interest under these provisions is mandatory and therefore dismissed the ground.Significant Holdings:On bad debts, the Tribunal quoted the Supreme Court in TRF Limited vs. CIT:'After the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. 01.04.1989, in order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.'On capital gains under section 45(4), the Tribunal cited the Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Kunnamkulam Mill Board:'As long as there is no change in ownership of the firm and its properties merely for the simple reason that the partnership of the firm stood reconstituted, there is no transfer of capital asset. Likewise, if a partner retires he does not transfer any right in the immovable property in favour of the surviving partner because he had no specific right with respect to the properties of the firm. What transpires is the right to share the income of the properties stood transferred in favour of the surviving partners, and there is no transfer of ownership of the property in such cases. When a partnership is reconstituted by adding a new partner, there is no transfer of assets within the meaning of s. 45(4).'Further, the Tribunal emphasized that the firm continues to be the owner of the assets and no transfer took place to invoke section 45(4).On charging of interest under sections 234A-D, the Tribunal held that such charging is mandatory and the ground was dismissed.