2020 (4) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xpenditure of Rs. 1,59,969/- out of the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. 3. This appeal was fixed for hearing for the first time on 16.09.2019 on which date, the Bench did not function and hence, the hearing was adjourned to 23.10.2019. On this date on 23.10.2019, the assessee made a request for adjournment and on the request of the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 24.10.2019. On this date also, the learned AR of the assessee made a request for adjournment and on his request, the hearing was adjourned to 25.11.2019. This date was pronounced in the open court. On 25.11.2019, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no request for adjournment and hence, this appeal of the assessee was heard ex-parte qua the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant submitted that the amount was adjusted against the interest income from the other sources in view of the fact that investment made with the NSEL is treated as deposits under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 and not with any mala fide intention. After considering the submissions of the appellant, the AO concluded that the amount of Rs. 6,61,216/- was not an allowable expenditure under Section 57(iii) of the Act as the same was not an expenditure to earn the interest income disclosed under head 'income from other sources'. 4.1 As regards amount of Rs. 1,59,969/- relating to interest paid on loan taken against fixed deposits for repayment of interest on overdraft fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y been written off by the. appellant in FY 2013-14, the same could have been claimed as bad debts in relation to AY 2014-15 if other conditions were also satisfied but not in any subsequent assessment year. Since the bad debts of Rs. 6, 61,216/- did not exist in the books of appellant during FY 2015-16, so the question of its writing off as bad debts and claiming it as deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act during the year under consideration would not arise. Considering above, the action of the AO in disallowing the amount of Rs. 6,61,216/- is upheld as neither the amount is allowable deduction under Section 57) of the Act nor the same can be allowed as bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 4.3 As regards the amount of R....