TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 143(1) and thereafter completed the assessment under section 143(3) on November 30, 2006. He assessed the total income of Rs. 24,73,96,400. The assessee had made an additional claim of deduction for bad debts on the ground that a clerical/ arithmetical error occurred in the return filed by the assessee. The assessee submitted that there was a short claim of bad debts to the tune of Rs. 12,83,044. The assessee filed the letter dated July 24, 2006 during the course of assessment proceedings and requested that the amount of bad debts be allowed. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also rejected the claim of the assessee relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 while confirming the aforesaid disallowance of appellant's claim of bad debts to the extent of reversal of the provision of Rs. 12,83,044 for bad debts already disallowed in the assessment year 2002-03. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that `. . . and I find that the Assessing Officer is justified in not allowing the claim of bad debts as the assessee has not filed any revised return.' 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that : (i) No decision as to whether the claim of the assessee otherwise than by revised return is allowable or not has been given by the hon'ble court in Goetze (In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT [1984] 150 ITR 460 (Bom) ; (iii) Chokshi Metal Refinery v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 63 (Guj) ; (iv) CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom) (affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mahendra Mills [2000] 243 ITR 56 (SC)) ; (v) CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [1986] 160 ITR 920 (SC) ; and (vi) CIT v. Cosmic Eng. Co. [1984] 20 TTJ (Ahd.) 271, 273. Alternatively, he submitted that he is making a fresh claim for this deduction before the Tribunal and that the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 323 does not in any way affect the powers of the Tribunal to admit an additional ground or additional claim, when all the facts of the case are on reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pers on record and orders of the authorities below as well as the case law cited, we hold as follows. The assessee in this case had in the original return of income filed and made a claim of Rs. 37,90,949 as bad debts. Later, he filed a letter dated July 24, 2006, during the course of assessment proceedings on July 10, 2006 wherein, it was submitted that the correct claim was Rs. 51,03,315 and the wrong claim was due to the fact that the figure was taken net of the provisions. It was pointed out that an amount of Rs. 12,83,044 has been used against the provision for bad debts made during the financial year 2001-02 and an amount of Rs. 29,322 has been written back. The said provision has been reversed on account of which the bad debt figu....