TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the submissions by the Revenue the delay is condoned. 3. In this appeal the revenue has taken the following grounds :- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs.1,20,06,153/- without appreciating the fact that in this case so many issues are involved. First, the so called bad and doubtful debt has not been mentioned in the printed audit report in respect of Wisetech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the concerned debtor company. Secondly, as per judgement of Calcutta High court in the case of Coats India Ltd. -vs- CIT that there should be honest judgement on the part of the assessee to consider such debts as bad and doubtful and lastly the companies to w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le -16 of the accounts the expenses include debit balance written off for an amount of Rs.1,20,06,153/- . It revealed that the assessee has written off this amount in respect of loan together with interest balance receivable from Wisetech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The debtor company :s under the same management, doing business from the same premises and the directors have substantial interest in it. It is seen that initial transaction took place during the financial year 2000-01. Each and every year (except financial year 205-06 the company has charged interest in respect of the loan and each and every year there were transaction between the assessee and the debtor. In this year the assessee has further provided loan for an amount of Rs.12,95,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n either on merit or on honest judgment, but by treating this debt as bad and doubtful the assessee indulged in the activity of siphoning its own income in disguise of bad and doubtful debt. Therefore, I am of the opinion that issue of debit balance written off is nothing but preconceived, diversion of income to evade tax. Accordingly, Rs. 1,20,06,153/- is disallowed and added back." 3.1. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the same by observing as under :- "4. I have perused the instant order and also the submission of the AR. It is evident that the appellant company has been carrying on the business of money lending for many years and had regularly been showing the subsequent recovery of old loans and interests written off as ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grieved by this now Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. At the time of hearing the ld.DR appearing on behalf of the revenue has relied on the following case laws in addition to the observations made by the AO (i) Greaves Ltd. vs CIT 251 ITR 190 (Bombay) (ii) Vijayakumar Mills Ltd. vs CIT 247 ITR 176 (iii) South India Surgical Co. Ltd. vs ACIT 287 ITR 62 (Madras) (iv) Dhall Enterprised and Engineers P.Ltd vs CIT 295 ITR 481 (Guj) He also contended that the action of the ld. AO is justified in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore he requested to upheld the action of AO. 5. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessing Officer. Hence, the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo con-sideration of the abovementioned aspect only and that too only to the extent of the write-off." 6.1. Keeping in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court we find no infirmity in the orders of ld. CIT(A) to be interfered with. We confirm the same and dismiss ground no.1 raised by the revenue. 7. The second ground raised by the revenue is relating to allowing income from sale of green leaf for Rs.3,462/- as agricultural income exempted from tax. 8. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of materials available on record, it is observed that the ld. AO has simply disallowed an amount of Rs.3,462/- without ascer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ack with total income." 10.1. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) deleted the same by respectfully following the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of AFT Industries Ltd. vs CIT (270 ITR 167). 11. At the time of hearing the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied on the order of the AO. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 12. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of the materials available on record, keeping in view of the fact that the issue is concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs AFT Industries Ltd. 270 ITR 167 (Cal) where the amount paid as cess was held as eligible for deduction in comp....