TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals) 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 impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is 26.12.2023, claimed to have been received on the same date. The present appeal has been filed before the Mumbai Bench of ITAT on 06.06.2024. Assessee has placed on record a petition for condonation of delay, wherein it is stated that initially assessee had filed the appeal before the Chennai Bench of ITAT, under a bonafide belief that the appeal is maintainable before the Chennai Bench since its first appellate authority who disposed off the assessee's appeal is located at Coimbatore. However, during the course of hearing by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Chennai in ITA No. 10/Chny/2024, it was held that the said appeal needs to be filed before the Mumbai Bench of ITAT, as jurisdiction of the Bench of the Tribunal to decide an appeal is determined by the location of the office of the ld. Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse of assessment proceeding, assessee vide letter dated 10.08.2016 made a fresh claim for "Bad Debt Written off Rs. 6,17,28,003/-" (out of total bad debts written off for Rs. 7,60,68,000/-). It was submitted that the bad debts were claimed only to the extent of Rs. 6,17,28,003/- and balance of Rs. 1,43,40,463/- were not claimed being recoverable in due course. 3.2. Assessee submitted that ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of bad debts with sole reasoning that assessee has sought to raise a fresh claim by submitting 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 asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es were pending for more than 15 years and not recoverable now. ii. In most of the cases the individuals/companies had gone into financial crunch and declared as insolvent. Most of the companies were closed and or referred to BIFR and or gone into liquidation. iii. Wherever the assessee could repossess the vehicles on account of non- payment of rentals, on sale, the consideration for the same was adjusted against balance receivable including the deposit which was adjusted while writing off the amount as irrecoverable. iv. In this business there was no collateral security offered/demanded as the hire purchase agreement is considered as Sale by instalment and therefore only security which was with finance company was mortgaged of the vehicles. On account of the wear & tear of the vehicles and usage over a period of time, on default when the repossessed vehicles are sold, no sufficient recovery could be made against balance instalments receivable. v. On account of change of address by the customer, assessee could not follow-up for recoveries. 3.6. During the year, assessee had written off bad debts in the books of accounts as indicated in Note 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai dt. 29.12.2016 passed in assessee's own case, particularly in AY 2009-10, wherein the Bench allowed the claim of capital loss without filing of revised 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. 19' are not in dispute. These financial statements were before the ld. Assessing Officer. The claim was made by furnishing a revised computation along with complete details of the parties whose balances were written off. Also, assessee substantiated its....