TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 560
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- made by the ld AO, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a company established with the object of carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of metal containers, collapsible tubes, paper packages, plastic moulded goods, packaging and printing machinery and property sales development. The return of income for the Asst Year 2005-06 was filed on 30.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs Nil after setting off brought forward loss of Rs. 34,53,54,130/-. The ld AO observed that the assessee had claimed deduction towards Inventory, Sundry debtors, Loans /Advances written off in the books amounting to Rs. 6,90,39,000/- net off write back of provisions to the tune of Rs. 3,92,47,000/-. This was reflected as extraordinary item in the profit and loss account by the assessee. The ld AO observed that the assessee computed the profit under income tax act in computation of income as per profit in profit and loss account after extraordinary items instead of profit for the year before extraordinary items which is not in accordance with law for computation of income. The ld AO observed that if the profit for the year befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the revival scheme was approved and finalized by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is well known that when a revival scheme is approved by competent authority, the said authority considers the entire position including accounts. The authority will not grant revival unless a true, correct and a realistic approach of assets / liabilities is placed before them otherwise the authority does not sanction the scheme. Therefore writing off of obsolete stock, sundry debtors and loans / advances including writing back of liabilities in respect of closed units must be held as incidental to business. 2.3. Before the ld CITA, it was also explained that total amount written off on account of unrealized sundry debtors and advances of closed units was made by excluding provisions of Rs. 3,92,47,000/- made from time to time under each head of account. It was the practice of the assessee company to reduce the book value of debts on account fo provisions made there against. It is well known that provisions for doubtful debts made in the accounts are not allowable under IT Act. Since the entire sundry debtors balance is written off and claimed as bad within the meaning of section 36(2) of the act, it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y explained in Notes to Account as filed by the assessee along with its profit & loss account. It appears that the Assessing Officer, however, did not appreciate the exact nature of the said amounts and proceeded to make disallowance of Rs. 645 lakhs on wrong presumption that the amount of Rs. 1826.27 lakhs debited by the assessee to the profit & loss account of inventories, sundry debtors, loans and advances write off was a mere provision and not loss. Even the ld. CII(Appeals) could not appreciate the specific submission made on behalf of the assessee before him in support of its case on this issue pointing out the exact nature of relevant amounts debited and credited to the profit & loss account and proceeded to uphold the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue merely on the ground that no details whatsoever regarding obsolete stock details, etc, of closed units as well as loss and advances claimed to be written off were filed by the assessee. The claim of the assessee on the issue under consideration thus has been disallowed by the Assessing officer and the disallowance so made has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) without properly examining/verifying the same on mer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 3.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in dismissing assessee's ground and confirming the addition of Rs. 2,06,151/- as undisclosed income as per TDS certificate. 3.3. The ld AR simply pleaded for setting aside of this issue to the file of the ld AO on the ground that there were certain deposits kept by the assessee with the banks wherein the interest income would be offered to tax on receipt basis and hence there could be some difference in the treatment given by the assessee vis a vis treatment given by the bankers on the interest component. In response to this, the ld DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities and stated that even before this tribunal, the assessee had not come up with any reconciliation to explain the difference of interest income of Rs. 2,06,151/-. 3.4. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the ld AR had not furnished any reconciliation for the difference in interest income of Rs. 2,06,151/- even before us as rightly pointed out by the ld DR. We feel that the ld AR had made merely made bald oral submissions without corroborating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that since the said sum of Rs. 87.32 lacs was not offered to tax by the assessee in Asst Year 2005-06, the same was added to total income of the assessee. It was submitted before the ld CITA and ld AO that assessee had already offered the entire sale consideration of Rs. 401 lacs in Asst Year 2004-05 itself on accrual basis by way of filing the revised return. Hence the taxation of Rs. 87.32 lacs which is already included in Rs. 401 lacs would result in double taxation. The ld CITA brushed aside the contentions of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to bring any evidence on record to prove the same and upheld the addition made by the ld AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 4a.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in drawing adverse inference by misleading the assessment year reported in the written submissions is which same income was offered to tax on accrual basis. 4b.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of Ld. CIT (A) to dismiss ground no.4 is opposed to his own findings in Appeal No.1021/CIT(A)-XII/Cir-11/09-10 relevant to A.Y 2004-05 on 14.03.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... b) 4 Flats at Mitha Tower Co-opt Housing Society Rs. 54,75,000 c) Deonar Land Rs. 5,68,80,000 d) Commercial Wing Rs. 4,03,00,000 e) Worli Factory & Office Block Rs. 3,99,00,000 f) Kolkata Unit No. 1 Rs. 14,75,000 g) Kolkata Unit No. 2 Rs. 30,00,000 h) Mangalore Unit Rs. 2,80,497 Rs. 16,07,62,197 The assessee company added back the book value of these assets of Rs. 37,71,000/- in its computation of income. Book value of land and building disposal charged to operating expenses in the profit and loss account. The ld AO observed that since the properties sold were those on which depreciation was claimed by the assessee in earlier years and therefore it becomes a depreciable asset and hence any gains arising from its sale has to be taxed as short term capital gains u/s 50 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld AO treated the gains as short term capital gains as against the claim of business income made by the assessee. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CITA. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 5.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is wong and unjustifed in dismissi....