TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 23.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: "1. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not allowing the Bad Debts amounting to Rs. 6,17,28,003/- as claimed in the books of accounts as "written off " and also claimed during the assessment proceedings in the revised computation. The CIT(Appeals) erred in not allowing the additional claim of deduction of Bad Debts filed during the course of assessment other than filing a Revised Return 2 Each one of the above ground is without prejudice to the other" 2.1 We note that registry has noted a delay of 103 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, the date of impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbai Bench of ITAT on 06.06.2024 i.e., within a weeks' time along with petition for condonation of delay explaining the above stated facts and circumstances. Considering these facts on record and liberty granted by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Chennai, the delay is condoned and the matter is taken up for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2014, reporting a loss of Rs. 1,16,70,751/-. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2014 declaring Nil income and claiming the same loss as per the original return. During the year under consideration, assessee has shown revenue from operations at Rs. 54,23,213/- and other income at Rs. 97,66,522/- and as per P & L Accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitting a revised computation which was originally not claimed in the return which is not supported by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). Further, ld. Assessing Officer mentioned that the claim made by the assessee is not a mistake/omission in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act but it is a fresh claim on a subsequent date, made in the course of assessment proceedings. It is also stated by him that assessee has not filed any revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act to this effect and that the proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act are not intended to provide another opportunity to the assessee to seek revision/rectification of the issue and thus the claim of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 5. 1997-1998 19,50,57,000 6. 1998-1999 8,00,21,000 7. 1999-2000 29,64,000 8. 2000-2001 63,79,000 9. 2001-2002 3,61,000 10. Total 60,15,50,022 3.5. According to the assessee, it had entered into more than 3000 Hire Purchase agreements with individuals and corporates during the period 1994 to 1999 at Mumbai and branches at Delhi, Calcutta, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Pune, Madras, Coimbatore, Bangalore etc. Total turnover accounted on hire purchase finance income for the above stated years is Rs. 60,15 50,022/-. Bad debts arose out of these hire purchase transactions, particularly made at the branches. As per assessee, it could not recover the instalments of rental from the customers on account of the following. i. The dues ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time to time as the same was included in Hire Purchase finance income of Rs. 60,15,50,022/-. 3.7. Assessee also submitted that as the bad debts claimed in books of accounts, similarly the credit balances which are no longer payable are also written back in the book of accounts to the extent of Rs. 2,55,753/- and taken as income. Assessee also furnished party-wise details of the bad debts forming part of the paper book placed on record. It also submitted that in response to the notice dt. 28.11.2016, wherein ld. AO required the assessee to file bifurcation of bad debts amounts into outstanding principal and interest separately as well as sample ledger a/c of the parties, the same were submitted vide letter dt. 29.08.2016. Assessee also sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d return. Before us, assessee also submitted the order of ld. AO giving effect to the ITAT order wherein long-term capital loss of Rs 5,42,33,145/- is allowed to be carried forward. 4. Before us, the only point of dispute is whether the ld. Assessing Officer was right in applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra) which is the only basis for rejecting the claim of the assessee made by way of revised computation filed during the course of the assessee. 4.1. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us as well as judicial precedents relied upon. Admittedly, facts relating to disclosure of claim of bad debts written off in the audited financial statements under 'note no....