TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he balance sheet against sundry debtors despite the fact that this was never considered by the AO and in support of this, referred to para 2.1 of the A.O's order and page-2 of the CIT-A's order. He further argued that the CIT-A decided the allowability of provisions of doubtful debt as business expenditure and the issue of netting off of provision for doubtful debt was never discussed in ground nos. 1 to 3 in pages 2 to 6 of his order. Therefore, the question of deletion of impugned addition does not arise at all and in view of this, this issue of revenue's appeal is liable to be allowed. In support of the contention, he relied on the order of the AO. 3. On the other hand, the ld.AR submits that the issue in hand is covered by the order dt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions for doubtful debt cannot be treated as uncertain liability by taking support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of supra. The operative portion of tribunal order dt. 31-10-2017 in the case of supra is reproduced herein below for better understanding:- "26.2 Now coming to the issue whether the impugned provision for doubtful debts represent the unascertained liabilities. After perusal of balance-sheet of assessee we find that there remains no ambiguity that the amount of provision of doubtful debts was adjusted against the sundry debtors as shown in the balance-sheet of the assessee as detailed under:- "Sundry debtors (Unsecured considered loan) Over six months 15,932.687 11,268,990 Under six mon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary to close the individual account of each debtor in the books." Besides we also find support and guidance from the order of this Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Deepak Industries Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No.2207/Kol/2010 dated 10.06.2011. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:- "6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the records of the case. It is well settled that before assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 by Ld. CIT, two conditions have to be simultaneously fulfilled. Firstly, assessment order should be erroneous and secondly, the order should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. If either of the ingredient missing, the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act cannot....