TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d amends, alter and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal. 5. That on the basis of facts of the case and in view of the circumstances it is prayed that either the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT may please be deleted or the matter may please be restore back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the interest of natural justice. " [B]. Assessment order dated 27. 03. 2014 was passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "Act"] wherein the total income was assessed at Rs. 3, 20, 49, 170/- as per following computation:- "Income as shown in return : Rs. 13, 02, 090 Add: (i) Disallowance out of bad debt : Rs. 50, 00, 000 (ii) Disallowance of advanced received u/s 68 : Rs. 1, 34, 00, 000 (iii) Disallowance of earth filling : Rs. 12, 72, 400 (iv) Addition to unsecured loan : Rs. 1, 06, 41, 000 (v) Disallowance out of vehicle running expenses : Rs. 45, 469 (vi) Disallowance out of depreciation on car expenses : Rs. 66, 246 (vii) Disallowance of proportionate interest : Rs. 3, 21, 967 Total income : Rs.3, 20, 49, 172 Rounded off : Rs. 3, 20, 49, 170 [C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount was advanced only for business purposes and therefore the provisions of section 36 (1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, is clearly applicable. That the condition precedent to section 36 (1) (vii) is that the assessee has actually written off the amount as Bad Debts in his books of accounts or not and since the assessee has actually written off the amount in his books of accounts during the year under consideration as bad debt, the amount is allowable u/s 36 (1) (vii) of The I Tax Act, 1961. That here it is also submitted that Mr. Arshad Ahamad is a cheater and to further prove that the advance was for purchase of land, we are enclosing herewith copy of News paper dated 04. 03. 2015. Now it is a settled law that if the assessee has written off the amount in his books of accounts as bad debt, he is not require to prove further as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. v/s CI reported in 190 Taxmann 391(SC) and in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd v/s CIT reported in 190 Taxmann 257 (SC). In view of the brief on the issue as narrated above the addition is baseless, beyond the fact of the issue and therefore not tenable in the eyes of law and therefore you....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to the assessee but to other peoples of Meerut. Hence, on the basis of page no-4, 5 and 12A and the decisions cited supra the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs actually written off by the assessee as bad debts is an allowable expenditure and may please be allowed. ............................... . .................. B. Ground No-3. Addition of Rs. 12, 72, 400 In the remand report the only objection of the assessing officer is that the vouchers are not available/produced, he nowhere doubted the expenditure In this regard it is submitted that this expenditure relates to earth filling and leveling of the land for which no external vouchers are possible to obtain. That the total expenditure was incurred on various dates and duly entered in the books of accounts. The assessing officer has not rejected my books of accounts and hence no addition could be made for the entries found entered in regular books of accounts of assessee and in particular when the assessing officer neither in his assessment order nor in his remand report doubted the expenditure and the books of accounts have been accepted. " [C. 4]. Ld. CIT(A) considered decided the issues as under: [C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in computing income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year; and thus, mandatory condition u/s 36(2)(i) of the Act is not fulfilled for claim of bad debt. At the time of hearing before us, Ld. AR for the assessee also expressed inability to bring any further material on record in support of the assessee's claim for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50, 00, 000/-. In the forgoing facts and circumstances, the assessee's claim for deduction of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50, 00, 000/- deserves to be rejected whether this claim is made as bad debt written off u/s 36 of the Act or alternatively u/s 37 of the Act. In any case, in Ground No. 2 of appeal, the assessee refers to section 36(1)(viii) of the Act which is not applicable to the facts and circumstances in the case of the assessee. [Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, is instead applicable for claims in respect of any separate reserve created and maintained by a specified entity. ] In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the assessee's claim for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50, 00, 000/- is unsustainable in law. [E]. As far as the afores....