TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2015. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL: 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -20 Mumbai (CIT-Appeal) has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer (AO) by dismissing the appeal filed, by confirming the addition of Rs. 43,61,237/- without considering the fact and without understanding the accounting entries passed by the Appellant. 1.2. The Learned CIT- Appeal failed to consider that the additions made by the AO are only on the basis of the word 'provision' used in the head of account debited to Profit and Loss account whereas the accounting entries passed in the books of account are properly pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Engineering Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the management had decided to write off one-half of the outstanding amount of Rs. 87,22,474/- during the year under consideration. Accordingly, it was submitted, that an amount of Rs. 43,61,237/- was written off during the year, and was thus debited by the assessee to its profit and loss account for the year under consideration. Also, it was submitted by the assessee, that inadvertently the words "Provision for doubtful trade receivable" were used in the profit and loss account, while the fact was that the same was not a provision but actually write off of the outstanding dues from the aforementioned party. In order to drive home his aforesaid claim, it was submitted by the assessee that the balance receiva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short "A.R") for the assessee submitted, that the assessee on account of an inadvertent mistake had used the word "Provision for doubtful trade receivable", while writing off one-half of the outstanding debt due from M/s Tag Engineering Pvt. ltd. In order to fortify his aforesaid claim the ld. A.R had drawn our attention to the copy of the ledger account of M/s Tag Engineering Pvt. ltd. appearing in its books of accounts for the year under consideration viz. A.Y. 2012-13, and also for the immediately succeeding year i.e A.Y. 2013-14. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the amount of the bad debt was clearly written o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he claim of the assessee that though it had written off one-half of the outstanding debt of Rs.43,61,237/- against the amount that was receivable from its debtor viz. M/s Tag Engineers Pvt. Ltd, however, on account of inadvertent mistake the wordings "Provision for bad debt" was used while posting the entry in the books of accounts. The ld. A.R by drawing our attention to the ledger account of the aforesaid party viz. M/s Tag Engineers Pvt. Ltd, as appearing in its books of accounts, had therein fortified its claim that the aforesaid amount of bad debt was duly written off in the account of the said party. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue under consideration in the backdrop of the facts available on record. Admitt....