2016 (5) TMI 708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore the Assessing Officer? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the sundry balances written off, when the assessee has not established that the debts written off were offered to tax in earlier years. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing glass refills, vacuum flasks and insulated wares. The assessee company has stopped the manufacturing activities since October 2003 due to heavy accumulated losses. It filed its return of income on 01-11-2004 declaring loss of Rs. 18,66,24,699/-. During the course of assessm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the order of the CIT(A) is erroneous because the assessee has not brought anything on record to prove that the amounts written off were taken into account for computing the profit of earlier years. The assessee has not given any documentary evidence with respect to the efforts made by the assessee to recover the amounts. 7.1 Referring to the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Embassy Classic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 20 taxmann.com 291 he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that even though write off of debt as bad and doubtful may be sufficient mode of discharging the proof, the said format of statutory evidence is not an empty formality. It is not necessary for the assessee to pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounts of the assessee. Since the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deleted the disallowance made by the AO, therefore, there is no infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue should be dismissed. 9. So far as the decisions relied on by the Ld. Departmental Representative are concerned he submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of South India Surgical Company Ltd. (Supra) is prior to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (Supra). So far as the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Embassy Classic Pvt. Ltd.(Supra) is concerned the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to Para 17 of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tly confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 3,66,71,850/-." 10. Referring to the above he submitted that it is very clear that the facts in the case relied on by the Ld. Departmental Representative are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the assessee had received back the amounts prior to filing of the return. Under these circumstances the Tribunal had held that the bad debt claimed by the assessee is not allowable since it is not a bad debt but a case of delayed payment. However, in the instant case, the assessee has not received any amount even till today. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) being in accordance with law should be upheld. 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the ....