TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of bad debt by completing ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to establish its claim before the AO. 2. Whether in the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee after admitting the additional evidence under rule 46A by ignoring the remand report of the AO? 3. That the order of the ld CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and I law. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other." 3. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate and construction filed its return of income on 17 2010 showing income of Rs. 3 549 4475/- will stop during the course of assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the Ld. departmental representative was that the admission of the additional evidences not justified. Furthermore, it was submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the above claim of the forfeiture of the advance given for purchase of land is bad debt. According to the Ld. DR it does not satisfy the condition of section 36 (1) (vii) of the income tax act read with subsection 2. It was further submitted that that advance forfeited is a business loss and not a bad debt this aspect is not at all been considered by the Ld. CIT (A) and if it is a loss it is allowed when it is incurred and not in the year of write off. It was further submitted that there are distinct condition for a liability of the loss as well as of the bad d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the price per acre at Rs. 7.28 crore. Thus, the AO finds that while assessee is selling a plot of land at Rs. 7.28 per crore there is no logic to forego the advance given at the price Rs. 2 crore per acre. 5.3.1 In a rejoinder to the remand report, the appellant vide letter dated 19.03.2014 submitted that during the assessment proceeding, the appellant got only 15 days time to submit the copy of agreement in respect of bad debt. During this period, the appellant could not trace the agreement hence could not submit it. The appellant stated that, the document was more than four years old and related to the payment made in an earlier assessment year (2009-10), the same could not be traced in a short span of time allowed by the AO. There w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available to the appellant to submit the document before AO. The main issue remains whether the copy of the agreement can be accepted as additional evidence and the addition can be examined accordingly. 5.3.4 The AO called for the document on 08.08.2012 and completed the assessment on 24.08.2012. Since the document was four years old and related to transaction in the earlier assessment years, it is possible that the appellant need some more time to collect the document and submit before AO. Thus, it is a abundantly clear that, the appellant was not given adequate opportunity of being heard by AO and hence the additional evidence submitted before me is admitted which are crucial for adjudication of the issues raised in the grounds of app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 8. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT appeal with respect to admission of the additional evidences in the form of agreement which assessee could not submit before the Ld. assessing officer. In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 9. Coming to the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the revenue regarding allowance of bad debt of Rs. one crore, according to the provisions of section 36 (1) (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year shall be allowed as deduction provided no such deduction shall be allowed unless such debt or part thereof has been ta....