TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee filed his Return of income declaring nil on 30th November, 1996 for Assessment Year 1996-97 along with Tax Audit Report, as required under Section 44-AB of the Act. The assessment was finalised on 24th March, 1999 under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 5,00,35,628/-, after various additions and disallowance. The first addition was by way of disallowance of bad debts of Rs. 1,52,83,756/-. The assessee company had written off fixed assets of Rs. 1,52,83,756/- which was given on lease. The amount was claimed as deduction under Section 36 of the Act as bad debt and a block of Plant and Machinery had been reduced by that amount. In Assessment Year 1995-96, the assessee gave his Plant and Machinery on lease. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt was accepted as loan by the Department and only interest on the amount was being taxed. Therefore, nothing was left for the assessee to establish that the amount was a loan; (b) The assessee had filed criminal proceedings against the parties as the cheque had bounced. There was no other matter pending before the Court regarding the genuineness of the loan; (c) The amounts had become bad debt in the hands of the assessee and the assessee had written off the amounts; 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order of CIT (Appeals). 6. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has preferred the present appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as Plants and Machinery is concerned. As the assessee had not passed necessary accounting entries, the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction on account of bad debt. Mrs. Bhatt further submitted that no material had been brought on record by the assessee to prove that the debt had actually become bad. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Manish J. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the assessee defended the order passed by the Tribunal submitting that no error much less an error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal and no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. 8. So far as the first question proposed is concerned, we find that the Tribunal recorded a finding that the amount written off was a lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is deducted from sundry debtors. As stated above, the AO has not examined whether, in fact, the bad debt or part thereof is written off in the accounts of the assessee. This exercise has not been undertaken by the AO. Hence, the matter is remitted to the AO for denovo consideration of the above-mentioned aspect only and that too only to the extent of the write off." 9. So far as the second question is concerned, the same is about claim of 100% depreciation on assets installed at Kalyani Seamless Tubes Limited to the tune of Rs. 3,47,439/-. This issue arises in the backdrop of the following factual situation. 9.1 The assessee purchased three assets which were installed in the factory premises of Messrs Kalyani Seamless Tubes Limited since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ountant (not being a technical person), is not sufficient. 11. In appeal filed by the assessee, CIT (A) held that facts of the case of the assessee were similar to that of Messrs Unimed Technologies Limited, wherein the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 12. The Appellate Tribunal recorded the following factual findings based on the evidence on record:- "9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and, perused the material on record. We noted that the CIT(A) while allowing the claim of the assessee has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Unimed Technologies Ltd. (ITA No. 2456/Ahd/1998 for AY 1995-96 dated 16.4.1999) in which case also the depreciation was disallowe....