2024 (6) TMI 592 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT allows deduction of business advances written off under section 37, overturning section 36(2) disallowance

Roop Kishore Madan Versus ACIT, Circle-16, New Delhi

The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee regarding disallowance of advance written off as expense under section 36(2). The tribunal held that ... Disallowance of advance written off as expense u/s 36(2) - as per AO Advances Written Off is allowable u/s 37 as there is a direct nexus between the amount of advance given and business of the assessee, which has never been doubted by the assessing officer - whether the said amount which was given up represented a loss of capital or was revenue expenditure? - HELD THAT:- As decided In the case of CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd [1962 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] question was whether the said amount which was given up represented a loss of capital or was revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court held that there was no element of a capital investment in making the advances and the loss incurred by the assessee was, therefore, a loss on the revenue side and was deductible. Similarly, in the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd [2012 (8) TMI 952 - ITAT, COCHIN] held that Business advances given for acquisition of revenue items is allowable to be written off u/s 37. Since the amount given is in the course of business, the same may be allowed to be written off u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appeal of assessee allowed. Issues:Disallowance of advance written off in profit & loss account as expense.Analysis:The assessee appealed against the disallowance of advance written off amounting to Rs.24,60,310/- in the profit & loss account. The advance was given in the financial year 2005-06 but could not be recovered until 31.03.2010, leading to it being written off in the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal examined the case, where the business of purchase and sale of Cigarettes was closed during the assessment year 2010-11 due to non-recovery of the advance. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount under Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but the Tribunal found a direct nexus between the advance given and the business operations of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the amount was given for the purpose of acquiring trading goods, making it a revenue expenditure rather than a loss of capital. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that losses directly related to business operations are deductible. The Tribunal concluded that the advance was made in the course of business and allowed the write-off under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Judicial Precedents:The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents to support its decision. In the case of CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court held that losses incurred in the ordinary course of business are deductible as revenue expenditure. Similarly, in Chenab Forest Co. vs. CIT, the court allowed deduction of irrecoverable advances under section 37 as they were essential for carrying on the business. The Tribunal also referred to T. J. Lalvani vs. CIT, where a trading loss was allowed on financing another person's business. Additionally, the case of CIT vs. Globe Theaters Ltd. established that advances made for business purposes are deductible. The Tribunal further cited the case of CIT vs. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd., where a written-off amount for a failed project was allowed as a revenue loss. These precedents supported the Tribunal's decision to allow the write-off of the advance in the present case.Conclusion:Considering the direct and proximate nexus between the advance given and the business operations of the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the write-off under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that losses incurred in connection with business activities are deductible as revenue expenditure. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the disallowance of the advance written off in the profit & loss account was set aside.