TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 487
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;s claim of write off of bad debts. Narrating the facts of the case, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that assessee had filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 31/08/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 18,48,070/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 30/03/2017 claiming loss of Rs. 5,04,601/- which includes loss on account investment in National Spot Exchange amounting to Rs. 31,03,225/-. The assessee set off said loss made against speculation business profits. The Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim of loss made in the revised return on the ground that the loss pertains to earlier years and hence, cannot be allowed in the year under consideration. Aggrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the assessee to further buttress his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Remi Securities Limited vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3649/Mum/2018. (ii) The Jt. CIT (OSD)2(10(1) vs. M/s. Aditya Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1971/Mum/2018. (iii) M/s. Remi Sales and Engineering Limited vs. ACIT ITA No. 3650/Mum/2018 (iv) Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 2818/Ahd/2017. 2.2. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in observing that the claim of bad debts was not made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. The assessee made claim of bad debts before the Assessing Officer and the amount of bad debts is written off in the books of acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of amount not recoverable from transactions at NSEL. We find that the Assessing Officer has not considered the claim of the assessee at all though the assessee had made submissions before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings on two occasions i.e. on 26/09/2017 and again on 16/10/2017. The communication on behalf of assessee is available at pages 65 and 63 of the Paper Book. In first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) refused to grant relief to the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not made his claim of bad debts before the Assessing Officer. The finding of the CIT(A) are contrary to the documents furnished by the assessee in Paper Book. 6. It is an undisputed fact that the transactions carried out by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me irrecoverable. It is enough if the 'debt' is 'written off' as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. Admittedly, in the case before us, the assessee company had 'written off' 25% of the balance outstanding from NSEL i.e. Rs. 1,98,70,000/- as a 'bad debt' in its books of accounts for the year under consideration. As observed by us hereinabove, the only reasoning for declining of the aforesaid claim of the assessee by the lower authorities was that as the case was under investigation and the seized assets were yet to be realized, therefore, the aforesaid claim of the assessee was premature. In our considered view, the aforesaid observations of the lower authorities are not in conformity with the sett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as written off bad debts in its book, there is no justification in rejecting the claim of assessee. The Board has issued Circular No. 17/2016 dated 30/05/2016 regarding admissibility of claim of deduction of Bad Debts under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The CBDT has accepted the law explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra) post amendment to the provisions of Sec. 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Act. 9. We find that in assessment order Para-5, the Assessing Officer has also observed that the loss is capital in nature and hence, can only be claimed for set off against capital gains. It is nowhere emanating from records that the transactions carried out at NSEL are on capital account. The....