TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s based on mere change of opinion and audit objection ? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim for bad debts on the ground that the amounts were borrowed by the Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation that was allegedly managed or enrolled by the State of Madhya Pradesh ?" The appellant-assessee also moved M. P. for injunction restraining the Revenue from collecting tax and submitted that the main issue in the tax case is covered by the apex court judgment in the case of T. R. F. Limited v. CIT reported in [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC). Therefore, by consent of both parties, the tax case appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The brief facts arising out of the appeal are as under : The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the allegations and stated that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act after making a thorough scrutiny of return of income and other details, particulars and explanations and also stated that the assessee had written off bad debts as per section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. After considering the objection, the Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the order of the assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not considered the material properly and did not consider the ratio of the judgment of this court in the case of South India Surgical Co. Ltd. reported in [2006] 287 ITR 62 (Mad), which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax directed the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer. Further, it was vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is incorrect inasmuch as the claim of bad debt is justi- fiable in law as the same is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the appellant. Further, the counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee relied on the apex court judgment in the case of T. R. F. Limited v. CIT reported in [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) to support his proposition that it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Tri- bunal has correctly followed the principle enunciated in the judgment of this court, in the case of South India Surgica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt thereof is written off in the accounts of the assessee. This exercise has not been undertaken by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration of the abovementioned aspect only and that too only to the extent of the write-off." The Supreme Court, after considering the scope of the provisions, held that the only requirement is that the bad debt should be written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. In the case on hand, the con- tention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer on examination of the case and on going through the facts carefully held that the claim of bad debt is justifiable in law as the same is written off as irrecoverable in the acco....