2014 (2) TMI 565

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bad debts claim of Rs. 1,27,54,092/- holding that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) is squarely applicable in the case of the assessee, even though facts of the case reveals that the assessee does not fulfill the condition laid down in section 36 (1)(vii) of the Act for claiming such bad debts as held by the ITAT in its original order dated 02.03.2012 ?" [B] Whether, the ITAT has erred in law in holding that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) is squarely applicable to the case of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the alleged debts of the assessee were 'good debts' as held by the ITAT itself, in the origin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve payment and the write off are alleged "bad debts". In the subsequent year, the "GCPTCL" has paid approximately Rs. 65 lakhs to the assessee and also debited a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs in F.Y 200405 in the accounts of the "GCPTCL". We find that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Section 26(1)(vii) of the Act in the case of "GCPTCL". In these facts of the case, an addition to the case, an addition to the tune of Rs. 1,07,67,742/- is confirmed and the balance amount of Rs. 19,86,349/- is allowed as bad debts for the year under consideration. In the result, the revenue's appeal is partly allowed." The assessee thereupon filed an application for rectification of the said order contending that as held by the Supreme Court i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee". 11. In the present case, the fact that debts have been written off in the accounts have not been controverted by Revenue. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we find no reason to interfere with the Order of the CIT [A] and we thus uphold his order. Thus, the ground of the Revenue is dismissed." In fact, we notice that even before the impugned order dated 15th February 2013 came to be passed by the Tribunal on the rectification application of the applicant, an order was already passed recalling the earlier order. In that sense, the order dated 15th February 2013 was only a fresh order on merits, the order of recalling its pre....