Tribunal allows bad debt deduction after proper write-off in books without individual debtor closure

ITAT Cochin allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts. The tribunal found that the assessee had properly written off debts by debiting the P&L account and adjusting the balance sheet, with debtor accounts closed through necessary entries. The CIT(A) failed to properly consider the records demonstrating the write-off. Following the SC precedent in Vijaya Bank, the tribunal held that individual debtor account closure was not mandatory for section 36(1)(vii) deduction, provided the amounts were written off in books and reflected in financial statements.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal challenging order of NFAC regarding A.Y. 2012-13 - Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts, provision for doubtful advances, and additional depreciation.

Analysis:
The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing activated carbon, filed an appeal against the order disallowing provisions for bad and doubtful debts, doubtful advances, and additional depreciation. The AO disallowed the provisions as the debts were not written off as irrecoverable and assets were used for less than 180 days. The CIT(A) accepted the additional depreciation but confirmed the disallowance of provisions. The assessee contended that the provisions were actual write-offs and relied on legal precedents. The AR presented evidence showing the write-offs in the financial statements. The DR supported the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal examined the financial statements and found that the assessee had written off the amounts of bad and doubtful debts and advances, closing the debtors' accounts. Despite the assessee demonstrating the write-offs, the CIT(A) did not consider the records properly. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing a Supreme Court judgment that allowed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) without the need to close individual debtor accounts. The Tribunal noted that the balance sheet and records supported the write-offs, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts and advances were eligible for deduction as per legal provisions and established practices. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper documentation and adherence to legal requirements in claiming such deductions.

---