TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 20,16,17,900/-. A revised return was filed on 31/03/2009 declaring income of Rs. 20,23,43,199/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dated 30/12/2009, wherein the income was assessed at Rs. 21,14,21,590/- in view of various additions / disallowances. 2.2. Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 30/12/2009 for A.Y.2007-08, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) - 40, Mumbai, who disposed off the appeal vide the impugned order dated 30/06/2014, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) - 40, Mumbai dated 30/06/2014, the assessee preferred this appeal raising the following grounds:- 1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal seriously. On the other hand, the learned DR for Revenue was present and ready to argue on revenue's behalf. We, therefore, proceed to dispose off this appeal ex-parte, with the assistance of the learned DR for Revenue and the material on record. 5. In grounds 1 to 3 (supra) raised by the assessee, all challenge the finding of the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order in upholding the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 14,65,624/- in respect of four parties since the balance of the parties in assessee's books were not tallying with the books of the respective parties, ignoring all the details furnished by it in this regard. 6. According to the learned DR for Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee is also admittedly not denied by the assessee. In our view, the learned CIT(A) after judiciously considering the facts of the case on this issue in detail has held as under at paras 15 to 17 thereof. 15. I have considered the facts of the case and feel that arguments made by the appellant are totally misplaced. In the present case, the AO is not questioning the 'writing off of the bad debts' by the appellant, but he has highlighted the discrepancies in the amounts written off and claimed as bad debts by the appellant vis-a-vis the balances appearing in the books of the parties concerned. Since the balances in the appellant's books which have been written off were not matching with the balances as appearing in the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unting to Rs. 1,18,259/-, in respect of this party. The total amount of excess bad debts written off claimed by' the appellant as compared to the balances as appearing in the books of the respective parties. worked out to Rs. 14,65,624/-, which was disallowed by the AO in the absence of proper reconciliation/ explanation. During the course of appellate proceedings also, the appellant has not furnished any reconciliation or clarification as to how the discrepancies as stated above were appearing and how the same can be reconciled. 16. It is further relevant to mention over here that the assessee is continuing business with all these parties, even after writing off of the balances. It is not clear as to how and why the assessee wrote of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is the situation in respect of other accounts. It is very interesting to note that even after writing off the amounts the respective parties are showing closing balance, meaning thereby that the entire amount has not been written off, but only selectively, which raised further doubts. 17. The appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. ClT. Ranchi, wherein it was held that after 1/4/1989, once a balance has been written off in the books, it should be allowed and assessee is not required to prove that actually it had become bad. However, situation is slightly different in the present case, as there is discrepancy in the figure written off, and the AO has only taxed such discrepancy. The claim of the assessee that he....