Referred Sections:
Section 115JB of the IT Act
Section 36(i)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the IT Act,
Section 2(vi)
Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act
Section 36(2),
Section 37(1 )/28 of the Act.
Section 14A
Referred Cases / Judgments:
M/s. Datamatic Financial Services Ltd. vs. DCIT, 2011 TIOL - 124 - ITAT - Mum,
Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd. reported in 329 ITR 80
All Grow Finance & Investment P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 338 ITR 496,
CIT vs. Global Capital Ltd., 306 ITR 332,
CIT vs. New Delhi Hotels Ltd., reported in 345 ITR
Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT, 349 ITR 250,
ACIT vs. Vereet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT,
4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15,
10, House Avenue, New Delhi.
New Delhi.
PAN: AAACR0354B
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
Assessment Year: 2010-11
DCIT, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises
Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi. 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan,
10, House Avenue,
New Delhi.
PAN: AAACR0354B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate
Revenue by : Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Date of Hearing : 05.09.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019
ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
These are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second
one by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 22nd April, 2015 of the
CIT(A)-11, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2010-11.
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
ITA No.4574/Del/2015 (by the Revenue)
2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:-
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.54,08,93,273/- on account of bad
debts claimed in computation of income, without appreciating the fact that the
assessee is NBFC registered with RBI under the category of investment
company and the loan advance to M/s. VTL was not in the ordinary course of
business.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.54,08,93,273/- by accepting the
additional evidence and other submissions filed by the assessee without a
reasonable opportunity being allowed to the AO under 46A(3) of the Income
tax Rules :
a) To examine the evidence or documents submitted by the assessee;
b) To produce any evidence or document in rebuttal of the additional
evidence produced by the appellant.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in not taking cognizance nor distinguished the instant case on the facts
and in law in placing reliance on SA Builders case as in the instant case the
issue involved is not related to claim of expenditure but related to claim of bad
debts.
4. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds(s) of
appeal and/or delete or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal."
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a domestic company
trading in units of mutual funds and making investment in shares, debentures, etc.
It filed its return of income on 28th March, 2012 declaring loss of
Rs.42,49,69,592/- and under MAT of Rs.17,04,96,123/-. During the course of
assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that that assessee has written
off Rs.55.08 crore as bad debts and after crediting, provision for doubtful debts of
Rs.54,08,93,273/- against this, which was created in the assessment year 2008-09,
2
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
debited a net amount of Rs.l crore to the P & L account under the head "bad debt."
From the computation statements the Assessing Officer noted that the amount of
Rs.54.08 crore was added back both to the total income as well as to the book
profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the IT Act which has resulted in reducing
the tax liability. Considering this fact, AO vide order sheet entry dated 13.12.2012
asked the assessee to furnish the details in this regard. In response to the same it
was submitted that assessee had advanced a sum of Rs.54,08,93,273/- to M/s. Vasu
Tech Ltd. and out of this a sum of Rs. 21.20 crore was recovered under a written
loan agreement dated 15.04.2005 and sum of Rs.32,88,93,272/- was advanced
from time to time after the execution of above loan agreement. As per the terms of
the agreement, the loan was liable to be repaid along with interest @12% p.a. The
loan was claimed to be advanced to M/s. Vasu Tech Ltd. and Mr. Dhruv Verma
and Mr. R.L. Verma and M/s. R.L Verma & Sons (HUF) stood surety for
repayment of loan in terms of above agreement. With regard to repayment of loan,
M/s. Vasu Tech Ltd. issued post dated cheques i.e. 01.01.2007 and 01.04.2007.
However, when represented, except a few cases, all these cheques were returned
dishonoured, therefore, assessee company initiated proceedings u/s. 138 r.w.s. 142
of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was pending in the court of Magistrate at
Patiala House, New Delhi. It was further mentioned that apart from the above
proceedings, assessee company had also filed two civil suits for recovery of a sum
of Rs.26,26,91,544/- and Rs.41,64,47,667/- and these suits were pending before the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court being CS (OS) No. 850/2007 and CS (OS) No.
3
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
1093/2008. It was further explained that both the above suits were decreed by the
Hon'ble Court in favour of the assessee company vide order dated 26.11.2009
against which appeal was filed by the defendants. It was further submitted that
assessee company initiated proceedings for execution of the decree being
Execution Petition No. 160/2011 and accordingly two of the properties belonging
to the defendants were initially directed to be attached but it was discovered later
that one of the property was tenanted and the other property was mortgaged with
the Bank against financial assistance availed by M/s. Vasu Tech Ltd. Assessee
company filed an application before the High Court for examination of the
Judgment Debtor for disclosure of their properties and assets. Before the Hon'ble
Court Mr. Dhruv Verma and Mr. R.L. Verma filed affidavits stating that there was
no immovable properties under their ownership and control. Assessee company
filed winding up Petition u/s. 433 of the Companies Act against Vasu Tech Ltd. in
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh which was admitted under
Petition No. 13/2007 and Provisional Liquidator was appointed in respect of the
assets of M/s. Vasu Tech Ltd.
4. Considering the above submissions, the AO specifically asked the assessee
on 13.02.2013 to furnish the loan agreement entered into between the assessee
company and M/s. Vasu Tech Ltd. along with year wise ledger accounts of M/s.
Vasu Tech Ltd. in the books of assessee. On 26.02.2013, Loan agreement was
furnished before the AO and AO noted the following points:
4
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
· Loan agreement was made on 15.04.2005 whereas an amount of Rs.
19.20 crore had already been extended to M/s. Vasu Tech Ltd. even prior
to entering of this loan agreement.
· The above loan was advanced on monthly/fortnightly basis w.e.f. Nov,
2003 to Nov, 2005 in the installments of Rs.25 lac/50 lac/1 crore/5 crore
etc.
· There was no prior loan agreement for advancing the above loan nor
there was any security guarantee in respect of repayment.
· On the date of loan agreement i.e. 15.04.2005 entire loan of Rs. 19.20
crore was outstanding.
· The above loan agreement was for further loan of Rs.2 crore provided to
M/s. Vasu Tech Ltd.
· No interest payment was made by M/s. Vasu Tech Ltd. to the assessee
company during the period 2003 to 2004 during which Rs.8 crore were
advanced.
· Though as per above loan agreement, there was provision of interest
payment @12% p.a. but as per ledger account, no interest was either
provided or paid during the F.Y. 2005-06.
· As per clause 2.5 of the above loan agreement, there was provision for
default interest @ 2% to be paid by borrower to the lender but this
provision was not invoked by the assessee company but on the contrary it
5
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
further advanced a sum of Rs.33 crore which was not covered by this
loan agreement.
· It was further noted by the AO that though Mr. R.L. Verma and M/s. R.L.
Verma & Sons (HUF) stood as surety for repayment of loan but loan
agreement was signed only by one person in all four capacities i.e. Mr.
Dhruv Verma for M/s. Vasu Tech Ltd., Mr. Dhruv Verma in his personal
capacity, Mr. Dhruv Verma for and on behalf of Mr. R.L. Verma, Mr.
Dhruv Verma for and on behalf of M/s. R.L. Verma & (HUF). In view of
these facts, it was held by the AO that loan agreement was entered into
without any basic precaution or diligence without the mandatory
surety/guarantor/co-guarantor which indicates that the loan agreement
was a farce with complete disregard for all procedural requirements. It
was further noted by the AO that above loan agreement was made on
stamp paper of Rs.500 and even was not notarized by Notary Public.
· On perusal of ledger accounts of M/s. Vasu Tech Ltd. in the books of
assessee, it revealed that there was no interest income received nor
provided in the books of the assessee for financial year 2003-04 and even
for the F.Y. 2005-06 when the above loan agreement was entered into on
15.04.2005 neither there was interest received nor provided in the books
on accrual basis though as per agreement there was provision for interest
@ 12% p.a.
6
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
· It was further noted by the AO that as per section 36(i)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of
the IT Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of bad debts which have
been written off unless the same have been taken into account in computing
the income of the assessee in any earlier previous year or represents money
lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending which is
carried out by the assessee. It was further observed by the AO that in the
instant case, above debts were neither ever been a part of income of the
assessee nor the above transactions can be labeled as lent in the ordinary
course of money lending business because there were glaring
lacunae/procedural irregularities which shows that these can be in no way
can be treated an amount advanced in the normal course of money lending
business.
5. Apart from the above, it was further noted by the AO that as per
Memorandum of Association of the assessee company, the main objects were
dealing in stocks and shares, acting as commission agents, stockiest etc. and money
lending was not included in the main objects of the company as it was appearing as
the 8th objective under the "Incidental or Ancillary Objects". Further, AO
observed that as per clause 8 of the loan agreement, there was option to convert
into equity to the lender as per which the lender can convert in part or whole, the
outstanding dues into equity share capital of the borrower. It was noted by the AO
that in the F.Y. 2005-06, assessee company acquired 738234 shares in M/s. Vasu
Tech Ltd. covering an amount of Rs.2.25 crores which shows that the above
7
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
transaction was in the nature of investment made by the assessee out of the surplus
fund and not part of regular business of advancing loans. In this regard, AO placed
reliance in the case of M/s. Datamatic Financial Services Ltd. vs. DCIT, 2011
TIOL - 124 - ITAT - Mum, wherein it was held that such deposits cannot be
allowed to be written off as bad debts u/s. 36(i)(vii).
6. It was claimed by the assessee before the AO that since it is a registered non
banking financial company, therefore, debt should be allowed u/s. 36(i)(vii) of the
IT Act. The claim of the assessee was examined by the AO and it was noted by her
that as per section 36(i)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the IT Act, such a deduction is available
only if debt represents money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or
money lending which is carried on by the assessee.
7. From the provisions of section 36(i)(vii) r.w.s.36(2), it was noted by the AO
that for making claim as per above provisions two conditions are required to be
fulfilled, i.e., firstly, the business of the assessee should be of banking or money
lending and, secondly, the debt shall have been advanced in the ordinary course of
business or money lending. AO further examined the claim of assessee that it is a
registered NBFC as per guidelines of RBI, 1998 wherein NBFC has been
categorized into four categories namely a loan company or an investment company
or an asset finance company or a mutual benefit finance company. Considering the
above, AO verified from the copy of return submitted by the assessee to the RBI to
ascertain as to in which category does the assessee company falls. It was noted by
8
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
the AO that assessee company falls under the category of "Investment Company"
and "Investment Company" has been defined in section 2(vi) of the above Rules
and guidelines as " meaning any company which is financial institution carrying on
as its principal business the acquisition of securities. "In view of the above
examination and provisions of law as discussed above, it was held by the AO that
assessee company is registered with RBI as an NBFC in the category of an
"Investment Company" which is altogether a distinct category from loan company
which has been defined in section 2(viii) of the NBFC Directions, 1998 as "a
financial institution carrying on as its principal business the providing of finance
whether by making loan or advances or otherwise for any activity other than its
own". Thus, it was held by the AO that assessee company is not in the business of
money lending. Further, it was also noted by the AO that on the basis of her
finding in para 5.2 of the assessment order, it was clear that debt claimed by the
assessee company cannot be treated as advanced in the ordinary course of business
of money lending. Further, while assessee is claiming writing off the amount
advanced to M/s Vasutech Ltd. in the year under consideration, on the other than
litigation has been filed in the court in respect of this amount and on 26.11.2009,
the Civil Suit was also instituted by the assessee and decree order was passed in
favour of the assessee along with future interest and pendentelite and in 2011 a suit
for execution of decree was also filed.
9
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
8. Further, AO referred to the RBI's Guidelines vide notification No. 115 of
02.01.1998 for NBFCs which provides as under:
"in respect of accounts where there are potential threats to their recovery on
account of erosion in the value/non-availability of security or existence of
other factors such as frauds committed by borrowers, it will not be prudent for
NBFCs to classify them first as sub-standard assets and wait till the expiry of
two years for classification as doubtful assets. We advise that such accounts
should be straightway classified as `doubtful assets' or `loss assets ', as
appropriate, irrespective of the period for which these have remained as
NPAs."
9. Considering the above, it was noted by the AO that assessee company
clearly violated the above guidelines and further in the year 2000, RBI issued
comprehensive directions and guidelines to all NBFCs in the category of loan
companies for establishment of an asset liability management system as part of
overall system for effective risk management in various portfolios. In view of the
above facts, it was noted and held by the AO that assessee company never obtained
collateral security for the loan extended to M/s Vasutech Limited clearly violating
the guidelines issued by the RBI, as discussed above, therefore, in anyway, the
amount in question given by the assessee company to Vasu Tech Limited cannot
be treated as loan given in ordinary course of money lending business. Therefore, it
was finally held that assessee company is not entitled to deduction u/s 36(l)(vii) in
respect of amount of Rs.54,08,93,273/-, which was not even debited in the profit
and loss account but it was reduced for the total income as well as from Book
Profit in the statement of computation of total income. Therefore, it was held by
the AO that both the total income and book profit u/s 115JB are liable to be
10
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
enhanced by the above amounts. Accordingly, Assessing Officer disallowed the
amount of Rs.54,08,93,273/- and added back the same to the total income of the
assessee as well as to the book profit u/s 115JB of the IT Act.
10. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions along with
certain additional evidences which were forwarded by the CIT(A) to the Assessing
Officer for obtaining a remand report. After considering the remand report and
rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition
made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-
"4.9 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order,
the submissions made by the appellant.
4.9.1 A.O.'s remarks that as per NBFC rules of RBI, it falls in category of
Investment Company the principal business of which is acquisition of
securities cannot be accepted prima facie. The business profile is indicative
per the RBI definitions and not restrictive or limiting. Further, the money
lending activities by the appellant are accepted by RBI, as seen from
additional evidence and other submissions filed. Even, the A.O. says that
Investment is the principal business of appellant. That does not preclude
activities pertaining to money lending. The decree per the civil suit in
litigation in appellant's favour reinforces the merits of the appellant's case as
the appellant's position was upheld by the governing High Court. The A.O's
comments that such money lent is not in the ordinary course of money lending
cannot be acceded to as that would amount to the APO stepping into the shoes
of the appellant to decide on the course of business of the assessee - which is a
proposition that has repeatedly been struck down by various Court judgments.
4.9.2 The case of Datamatic Financial Services Ltd. v. DCIT reported in
2011 TIOL- 124 relied upon by the AO is distinguishable on facts. In
Datamatic case the assessee made no specific claim that it was engaged in
money lending, accordingly, it was held that the assessee was not engaged in
the business of money lending. In the instant appeal before me, the facts are
different as the are multiple transactions involving substantial sums of money
with many parties over several years. These appear to have been accepted in
past relevant authorities and courts.
4.9.3 The AO cannot decide on the extent precautions or diligence for
advancing funds/moneys or loans. This is particularly considering that the
11
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
defaulting party M/s VTL is an unrelated party of appellant. It is not the duty
of the AO to decide as to how the assessee should conduct business. This is a
settled proposition. Reference to the decision of the Apex Court reported in
288 ITR 1 (SC) in the case of S.A. Builders v. CIT (A) is pertinent here,
wherein it was held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in
the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors
and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having
regard to the circumstances of the case.
4.9.4 The AO disallowed the appellant's claim for bad debts on the ground
that the appellant company is not in the business of money lending and as such
is not covered u/s 36(l)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. From perusal of
the details of interest income and past assessment orders u/s 143(3), I find that
the Interest from loans and advances given by the assessee including interest
on loan to VTL has previously been assessed as its business income. In the
year of write off of the loan, it cannot be decided that the money lending is not
the business of the appellant. This inference of the A.O. is contrary to the
judicial principle of consistency approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court respectively in the case of [Radhasoami
Satsang v. CIT 1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) and [Dalmia Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
2006] 281 ITR 346 (Del)
4.9.6 The condition precedent for such an action by the appellant is that the
loan or advance given in the ordinary course of money lending business is
written off during the relevant Assessment Year. The assessee has written off
the loan as bad debt in the AY 2010-11 which is not disputed by the AO.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of All Grow Finance and Investment P.
Ltd. v. CIT 338 ITR 496 (Del) has held that the amounts of debts were
advanced by the assessee in the ordinary course of money lending. The only
condition laid down in the second part of sub-section(2) of section 36 of the
Act was that the amount should be advanced in the ordinary course of business
which by itself proves its revenue nature and no further conditions were
required to be satisfied which were only applicable with regard to debt
qualifying as bad debt in the first part of sub-section (2).
4.9.7 The Division Bench of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v.
Morgan Securities and Credits P. Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 339 (Delhi), while
interpreting section 36(l)(vii) and 36(2)(i), observed as under:
"A conjoint reading of section 36(2) and section 36(l)(vii) makes it
clear that the assessee would be entitled to a deduction of the
amount of any bad debt which has been written off as irrecoverable
in its accounts for the previous year. Any lingering doubt would
vanish on a careful reading of Circular No. 551, dated January 23,
1990 ([1990]183 ITR (St.) 7) (the relevant portion of which reads
as follows :
12
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
'The old provisions of clause (vii) of sub-section (1) read with sub-
section (2) of the section laid down conditions necessary for
allowability of bad debts. It was provided that the debt must be
established to have become bad in the previous year. This led to
enormous litigations on the question of allowability of bad debt in a
particular year, because the bad debt was not necessarily allowed
by the Assessing Officer in the year in which the same had been
written off on the ground that the debt was not established to have
become bad in the year. In order to eliminate the disputes in the
matter of determining the year in which a bad debt can be allowed
and also to rationalize the provisions, the Amending Act, 1987, has
amended clause (vii) of sub-section (1) and clause (i) of sub-section
(2) of the section to provide that the claim for bad debt will be
allowed in the year in which such a bad debt has been written off as
irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.
Clauses (iii) and (iv) of sub-section (2) of the section provided for
allowing deduction for a bad debt in an earlier or later previous
year, if the Income-tax Officer was satisfied that the debt did not
become bad in the year in which it was written off by the assessee.
These clauses have become redundant, as the bad debts are now
being straightway allowed in the year of write off The Amending
Act, 1987, has, therefore, amended these clauses to withdraw them
after the assessment year 1988-89.
It is our view that Circular No. 551 leaves no scope for debate
since it specifically notices the previous practice of having to
establish that a debt had become bad in the previous year, which
had generated enormous litigation on the question of allowability
of bad debt in a particular year. The Circular expressed the hope
that this litigation would be eliminated by permitting a debt to be
treated as a bad or irrecoverable no sooner it was written off in the
books of the assessee concerned."
4.9.8 The claim of the assessee is further supported by the decision of the
Honb'le Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. v. CIT reported in 323 ITR 397
(SC) wherein it was held that after the amendment of section 36(l)(vii) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1989, in order to obtain a
deduction in relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to
establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable: it is enough if the
bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. It
would be pertinent to refer to the provisions of section 36(l)(vii) which is
being reproduced below:
13
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
"36(1)
......(vii) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of
any bad debt or part their of which is written off as irrecoverable in
the accounts of assessee for the previous year]"
4.9.9 In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am in agreement with the
submissions of Ld. AR for the appellant as regards the interpretation of section
36(l)(vii) read with section 36(2) and accordingly hold that the amount of Rs.
54,08,93,273/- is allowable as bad debt and as such the addition as made by
the AO of the same to the total income is deleted."
11. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before
the Tribunal.
12. The ld. DR strongly objected to the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the
addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.54.08 crores. The ld. DR
submitted that the assessee company has advanced a loan to M/s Vasu Tech Ltd.,
and the copy of the loan agreement dated 5th April, 2005 was furnished before the
Assessing Officer. However, the assessee company has advanced a loan of
Rs.19.20 crore before the loan agreement was entered with M/s Vasu Tech
Ltd.(VTL) No interest payment has been made by VTL to the assessee company
during the period 2003-2004. Further, no interest has been provided during F.Y.
2005-06. The ld. DR, referring to the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) w.r.s 36(2),
submitted that as per the said provision, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of
bad debts that has been written off unless such debts have been taken into account
in computing the income of the assessee in any earlier previous year and represents
money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking by money lending which
is carried out by the assessee. He submitted that in the instant case, debts have
14
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
neither been ever a part of the income of the assessee nor the transaction carried
out in the ordinary course of money lending. So far as the claim of the assessee
that it is registered as NBFC and, therefore, the debts should be allowed u/s
36(1)(vii) is concerned, he submitted that as per the RBI guidelines, the assessee
company falls in the category of investment company and it is not in the business
of money lending. Further, the assessee has not followed the RBI Guidelines since
it has never obtained as much as collateral security for the loan extended to M/s
VTL. Referring to clause 8 of the loan agreement dated 15th April, 2005, he
submitted that the same gives the option to the assessee company to convert into
equity to the lender any day which the lender can convert in part or whole the
outstanding dues into equity share capital of the borrower. Therefore, it is in the
nature of investment made by the assessee out of surplus funds and not part of
regular business of advancing loans. For the above proposition, he relied on the
decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Datamatic
Financial Services Ltd. (supra) which has been relied on by the Assessing Officer.
He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of
CIT vs. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd. reported in 329 ITR 80 and the
decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kashmir Trading
Company vs. DCIT, 291 ITR 228 and submitted that order of the CIT(A) be
reversed and that of the order of the Assessing Officer be restored.
15
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
13. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, heavily relied on the
order of the CIT(A). Referring to the copy of Memorandum and Articles of
Association, copy of which is placed at pages 1 to 22 of the paper book, the ld.
counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the other objects and
submitted that as per clause 8 of the objects incidental or ancillary to the
attainment of main objectives, the assessee can lend and advance money either
with or without security. So far as the allegation of the Revenue that the assessee
has not received interest in the earlier years is concerned, he submitted that the
assessee has earned interest in the preceding years and the same was offered to tax
as business income. Referring to page 107 of the paper book, the ld. counsel drew
the attention of the Bench to the interest received of Rs.63,74,489/- for the year
ended on 31.03.2008 and Rs.118,24,872/- for the year ended on 31.03.2007.
Referring to page 79 of the paper book, he submitted that the interest received for
the year ended 31.03.2009 was Rs.5,56,15,601.70. Referring to page 47 of the
paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the interest income of
Rs.9,76,70,350.26 for the year ended 31.03.2010. Referring to page 296 of the
paper book, he submitted that the assessee has received interest of Rs.1,67,28,717/-
for the financial year 2004-05 from M/s Vasu Tech Ltd. which has been assessed
as business income u/s 143(3). Referring to page 297 of the paper book, he drew
the attention of the Bench to the copy of interest received from M/s VTL for the
year ended 31st March, 2007 at Rs.5,57,947/- which has been assessed as business
16
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
income u/s 143(3). He submitted that the interest income was forming part of the
business income of the assessee which was duly shown in the return of income.
13.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF
Ltd., 323 ITR 397, he submitted that after the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of
the IT Act, 1961 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 in order to obtain a deduction in relation to
bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt has, in fact,
become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in
the accounts of the assessee.
13.2 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of All
Grow Finance & Investment P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 338 ITR 496, he submitted that the
Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where an amount advanced
by a non-banking finance company in the ordinary course of business becomes
bad, the assessee can write off the same once the condition laid down in the second
part of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act is fulfilled. It was held that the only
condition laid down in the second part of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act
was that the amount should be advanced in the ordinary course of business which
by itself proves its revenue nature and no further conditions were required to be
satisfied which were only applicable with regard to debt qualifying as bad debt in
the first part of the sub-section (2). The Hon'ble High Court accordingly reversed
the order of the Tribunal and allowed the appeal of the assessee.
17
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
13.3 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT
vs. Global Capital Ltd., 306 ITR 332, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in
the said decision has held that proof that debt has become bad is not necessary and
the debt must be written off in accounts in view of amendment of section 36(1)(vii)
of the IT Act. So far as the decision relied on by the ld. A.O. and ld. DR in the
case of Datamatic Financial Services Ltd. (supra) is concerned, he submitted that
the said decision is not applicable since, in that case, the money lending was not
the business of Datamatic Financial Services Ltd. He accordingly submitted that
since the order of the CIT(A) is in consonance with the law, it should be upheld
and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed.
14. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the
orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), and the paper book filed on behalf
the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We
find the Assessing Officer, in the instant case, disallowed the claim of bad debt of
Rs.54,08,93,273/- on the ground that the assessee does not fulfill the conditions of
sub-section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the IT Act. Further, the main object of the
assessee company is that of dealing in stocks and shares acting as commission
agents, stockist, etc., and money lending was not included in the main objects of
the company. It was also the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee
18
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
company violated the guidelines issued by the RBI from time to time. The
Assessing Officer also noted that although Mr. R.L. Verma and M/s. R.L. Verma
& Sons (HUF) stood as surety for repayment of loan but loan agreement was
signed only by one person in all four capacities i.e. Mr. Dhruv Verma for M/s.
Vasu Tech Ltd., Mr. Dhruv Verma in his personal capacity, Mr. Dhruv Verma for
and on behalf of Mr. R.L. Verma and Mr. Dhruv Verma for and on behalf of M/s.
R.L. Verma & Sons (HUF). This loan agreement was entered into without any
basic precaution or diligence without the mandatory surety/guarantor/co-guarantor
which indicates that the loan agreement was a farce with complete disregard for all
procedural requirements. In view of the above the Assessing Officer disallowed the
claim of bad debt of Rs.55.08 crores. We find the ld.CIT(A) deleted the
disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer the reasons of which have already
been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the ld. DR
that the loan was sanctioned by the assessee company to VTL even prior to the
date of loan agreement was entered into and no interest payment has been made by
VTL to the assessee in the period from 2003 to 2004. Further, no interest has been
provided during F.Y. 2005-06. It is also the allegation of the ld. DR that the
assessee has not followed the RBI guidelines as the assessee company has never
obtained as much as collateral security as the loan extended to VTL. It is the
submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that although money lending is not
the main object of the assessee company, however, as per the objects incidental or
ancillary to attainment of the main object, the assessee is authorized to lend and
19
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
advance money either with or without security and give credit to such persons and
upon such terms and conditions as the company may think fit. It is also his
submission that the assessee has always been showing the interest income as
business income for the last so many years which has been accepted by the
Department. It is also his submission that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra), after the amendment of section
36(1)(vii) of the IT Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, in order to obtain a deduction in
relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt,
in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as
irrecoverable in accounts of the assessee. Further, it is also his submission that
where an amount advanced by a non-banking finance company in the ordinary
course of business becomes bad, the assessee can claim the same once the
condition laid down in the second part of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act is
fulfilled.
14.1 We find merit in the above argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee. A
perusal of the page 296 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee shows that
the assessee has received interest of Rs.1,67,28,717/- from VTL for the year ended
31st March, 2005 and the submissions of the ld. AR that the same was assessed as
business income u/s 143(3) of the IT Act could not be controverted by the ld. DR.
Similarly, the assessee has received an amount of Rs.5,55,947/- as interest from
VTL for the year ended 31st March, 2007 copy of which is placed at page 297 of
20
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
the paper book. The submission of the ld. counsel that the same was also assessed
u/s 143(3) could not be controverted by ld. DR. Therefore, the allegation of the
Revenue that the assessee has not received any interest in the earlier years is
incorrect. Further, as per clause 8 of Memorandum of Association which are
objects incidental or ancillary to the attainment of the main objects, the assessee is
authorized to lend and advance money either with or without security and give
credit to such persons and upon such terms and conditions as the company may
think fit.
14.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra) has held that
after the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act, 1961 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989,
in order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the
assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough
if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. We
find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of All Grow Finance & Investment
P. Ltd. (supra) has held as under:-
"3. The assessee is a non-banking financial company. It derives its income
from interest on money lent to various parties as a part of its money lending
business. On 16th April, 1999 it lent `60 lakhs to M/s Bhav Portfolio. After
deducting opening credit balance of `3.10 lakhs, a sum of `56.90 lakhs became
due to be recovered. However, this amount could not be recovered even after
several requests, reminders and legal notice. Ultimately, `28.45 lakhs (50% of
amount due) was written off in assessment year 2000-01. The balance amount
was also written off in the year 2004-05 and the same stand allowed in the
assessment made under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (for short ,,the
Act). Similarly, `6,50,000/- (being 50% of the amount due) was written off in
the case of M/s Gallery in the relevant assessment year.
21
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
4. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessees claim for bad debts holding
that under Section 36(2), to write off any bad debt, same has to be included in
the income for earlier years which was not done in the case of assessee.
5. The findings of the Assessing Officer were confirmed by both CIT(A) as
well as Tribunal. The Tribunal also observed that the advances made by the
assessee were without collateral security or any other type of security. Such
non-compliance of safety measures in respect of security of debt shows that
the advance was not made in the ordinary course of business. The Tribunal
also observed that since the assessee failed to prove that the amount which has
been advanced was ever shown as income in any of the previous years,
therefore, conditions set out under Section 36(2) are not fulfilled.
.............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
13. We are of the view that the only condition laid down in second part of sub-
section 2 of Section 36 of the Act is that the amount should be advanced in the
ordinary course of business which by itself proves its revenue nature and no
further conditions are required to be satisfied which are only applicable with
regard to debt qualifying as bad debt in the first part of sub-section 2 in the
manner as interpreted above.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are in agreement with the submissions of
learned counsel for the appellant/assessee as regards the interpretation of sub-
section 2(i) of Section 36 and that being so, we are of the view the authorities
below are not justified in holding that the amount of Rs.34,95,000/- was not
allowable as bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the
Act."
15. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Global Capital Ltd.
(supra) has held that under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act, as
amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, the assessee is not required to establish that the
concerned debt has actually become bad in the relevant year for the purpose of
claiming deduction under this section and the only requirement for claiming the
deduction is that the assessee has to write off the relevant debt in its books of
account. The various decisions relied on by the ld. DR are distinguishable and not
22
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. (supra) and the binding decisions of the jurisdictional
High Court cited supra. In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed
reasoning given by the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, we find no infirmity in the order of
the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the
Revenue are dismissed.
ITA No. 3796/Del/2015 (By the assessee)
16. Ground Nos.1 and 1.1. raised by the assessee read as under:-
"1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)]
has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- being the
advance given to Mrs. Anuradha Shyam Chandani which was written off as
bad debt on its forfeiture by the party during the year. The advance was given
for the purchase of property in the course of appellant's business as stock in
trade. The claim of the appellant if not allowable as bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii), is
allowable as business/trading loss under section 37(1 )/28 of the Act. The
disallowance as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld.
CIT(A) being based on erroneous views and / or non-appreciation of the facts
and law deserves to be deleted.
1.1. That without prejudice to the above, if the said amount forfeited by
Mrs. Anuradha Shyam Chandani be not allowed as a bad debt or as a business
loss/trading loss, the same is allowable as a short term capital loss."
17. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer, during the course
of assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.1 crore
in the P&L account on account of bad debts. On being asked by the Assessing
Officer, it was explained that the above amount was given to Mrs. Anuradha
Shyam Chandani for purchase of property, but, due to some reasons, the assessee
could not purchase the property and the amount was forfeited by her, therefore, the
23
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
same was claimed as bad debt in the P&L account. However, in absence of any
evidence to substantiate the above claim or to prove that it is a trading debt and the
money was advanced in the ordinary course of business, the Assessing Officer
rejected the claim of writing off the debt and added the same to the total income of
the assessee.
18. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee intended to purchase
the property in the course of its business as stock-in-trade. Certain additional
evidences were filed before the CIT(A) such as agreement to sell dated 16th April,
2009, communication letters leading to forfeiture of advance, Board Resolution
regarding agreement to purchase the property, etc. It was further submitted that the
assessee has paid a sum of Rs.1 crore as advance to Mrs. Anuradha Shyam
Chandani for purchase of industrial plot in terms of agreement to sell dated 16th
April, 2009 for reasons of commercial expediency as market was weak in the
prevailing circumstances at that time. It was not considered expedient to purchase
that property or to complete the transaction. Since the advance amount was
forfeited by the seller and it was written off by the assessee and since the amount
was expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee,
therefore, such write off, if not allowed as bad debt, should be allowed u/s 28(1) of
the IT Act and u/s 37 of the IT Act as business loss. It was further argued that
merely because the claim was not made out under one particular provision of the
Act, but, was so made out under another provision of the Act, the claim cannot be
24
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
disallowed. Various decisions were also brought to the notice of the CIT(A) and it
was submitted that in case the same was not allowed as bad debt, it should allowed
as a business loss.
19. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation given by the
assessee. He observed that the advance given by the assessee for purchase of
property, which was later written off, is not allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) as bad debt as
the same is not a trading debt which was taken as income in earlier years or money
advanced in the ordinary course of business. He accordingly rejected the grounds
raised by the assessee on this issue.
20. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before
the Tribunal.
21. The ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Hotels Ltd., reported in 345 ITR
1, submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has allowed the claim
of business loss when the amount was advanced for purchase of property, but, the
property was not transferred and the amount was not repaid. Referring to the
decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs.
CIT, 348 ITR 109, he submitted that when the amount has been advanced in the
course of business and the advance become irrecoverable even if the claim is not
allowed as bad debt, the same can be allowed as business loss. It was held that the
right of the assessee to relief is not restricted to the pleas raised by him before the
25
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
Departmental authorities or before the Tribunal. If, in respect of the contention
raised by the assessee, grant of relief to him on another ground is justified, it would
be open to the Department and the Tribunal and indeed they would be under a duty
to grant that relief. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in
the case of Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT, 349 ITR 250, he submitted that where the
amount was disallowed as bad debt u/s 36(2), the assessee can claim for deduction
as business loss u/s 28. It was held that there is no bar in claiming a loss as
business loss if it is incidental to carrying on of a business. The fact that the
conditions for deduction as bad debt were not satisfied by the assessee would not
prevent him from claiming deduction as a business loss. He accordingly submitted
that even if the claim of bad debt was rejected by the Assessing Officer or the
CIT(A), the same should be allowed as a business loss.
22. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied upon the order of the CIT(A).
He submitted that since the object of the assessee was not to carry on the real estate
business, therefore, it pertains to capital and, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was fully
justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer.
23. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides; perused the
orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A); and the paper book filed on behalf
of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us.
We find the Assessing Officer, in the instant case, disallowed an amount of Rs.1
crore debited by the assessee as bad debt in the Profit & Loss Account on the
26
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
ground that the assessee did not furnish any iota of evidence to substantiate the
above claim nor was this in any way reflective of either a trading debt or money
advanced in the ordinary course of money lending. We find, the ld.CIT(A) upheld
the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the advance given by the
assessee for purchase of property which was later written off is not allowable under
the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) as bad debt as the same is not a trading debt
which was taken as income in earlier years or money advanced in the ordinary
course of business of money lending, hence, also not in the ordinary course of
business. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that in view of the
various decisions cited by him, even if the same is not treated as bad debt, the same
should be allowed as business loss. It is an admitted fact that the assessee does not
fulfill the conditions prescribed u/s 36(1)(vii) or 36(2) so as to claim the amount as
bad debt. It is the alternative contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the
same should be allowed as a business loss. However, the assessee has to prove
before the Assessing Officer that the amount can be allowed as a business loss.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we
deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a
direction to grant an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim that it
fulfills the conditions required for allowing the above amount of Rs.1 crore as
business loss. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law,
after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct
27
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are accordingly
allowed for statistical purposes.
24. Ground of appeal No.2 reads as under:-
"That on the facts and law involved the Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in confirming
the disallowance of Rs.2,81,051/- being the amount of alleged expenditure in
relation to shares held as stock in trade computed by the Ld. AO under Rule
8D(2)(iii). Section 14A is not applicable in respect of shares held as stock in
trade as the profit therefrom is taxable as business income and dividend if any
thereon is incidental."
25. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer, during the course
of assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee has made a disallowance of
Rs.55,92,603/- u/s 14A. He further noted that the assessee has not included the
opening stock and closing stock of shares and mutual funds while making
disallowance u/s 14A. He observed that the assessee received dividend on account
of the above stock. In the P&L Account, the dividend received has been bifurcated
into two heads, namely, on investments and on investments held as stock-in-trade.
Thus, the assessee has shown dividend income at Rs.39,97,165/- as dividend on
shares held as stock-in-trade. Since, disallowance u/s 14A arises out of the exempt
nature of dividend income, the fact of shares being investment or stock is not
material. After considering the average of both the opening and closing stock
which works out to 5,62,10,198/-, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of
Rs.2,81,051/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Act. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld
the action of the Assessing Officer.
28
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
26. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before
the Tribunal.
27. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A).
He submitted that when the assessee has suo motu disallowed an amount of
Rs.55,32,603/- and there is no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer that
the disallowance so made by the assessee is incorrect, therefore, the order of the
CIT(A) sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer should be set
aside.
28. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the Assessing
Officer and the CIT(A).
29. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides; perused the
orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A); and the paper book filed on behalf
of the assessee. As held by the Assessing Officer himself, the assessee has
received a dividend income of Rs.39,97,165/- on shares held as stock-in-trade
which has been claimed as exempt. It is also held by the Assessing Officer that the
assessee has made suo motu disallowance of Rs.55,32,603/- u/s 14A of the Act.
Therefore, we find merit in the argument advanced by the ld. counsel that when the
assessee has himself disallowed an amount of Rs.55,32,603/- and no satisfaction
has been recorded by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the disallowance made by
the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) is not correct. We, therefore,
29
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to
delete the addition.
30. Ground of appeal No.3 raised by the assessee reads as under:-
"That on the facts and law involved the Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in confirming
the disallowance of Rs.4,72,389/- under Rule 8D(2)(i) being the amount of
custodian fee paid in relation to shares held both as stock in trade and
investments. Section 14A is not applicable in respect of shares held as stock in
trade as the profit therefrom is taxable as business income and dividend if any
thereon is incidental."
31. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer, during the course
of assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee has paid a custody fee of
Rs.4,72,389/- on account of demat charges during the year and the same related to
investments yielding exempt income or stock-in-trade which yield exempt income
to the assessee. Since the assessee has not disallowed the same in the working of
disallowance u/s 14A and since the above forms direct nexus with the investments
and would fall under the purview of Rule 8D(2)(i), therefore, the Assessing
Officer, applying the Rule 8D(2)(i) made disallowance of Rs.4,72,389/-. In appeal,
the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.
32. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before
the Tribunal.
33. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides; perused the
orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A); and the paper book filed on behalf
of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us.
30
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
We find merit in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the provisions
of section 14A is not applicable in respect of the shares held as stock-in-trade as
the profit therefrom is taxable as business income and dividend income thereon is
incidental. Further, the assessee itself has disallowed an amount of Rs.55,32,603/-
and the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction and the assessee has
received dividend income of only Rs.39,97,165/- on the shares held as stock-in-
trade. Since no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer, therefore,
we find merit in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the
disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) is not
proper. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing
Officer to delete the addition. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly
allowed.
34. Ground of appeal No.4 taken by the assessee reads as under:-
"That on the facts and law involved the Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in confirming
the addition of Rs.2,81,051/- and Rs. 4,72,389/- to the book profit u/s 115JB
of the Act being the amount of estimated expenditure disallowed under
Section 14A / Rule 8D. Additions and disallowances as made in the assessed
income as per the provisions of the Act cannot be the basis of addition to book
profit for the purposes of MAT u/s 115JB unless the same are covered under
the explanation to section 115JB of the Act. Provisions of section 14A
nowhere prescribe the adjustment of notional expenses disallowed u/s 14A
computed on estimate basis for computing book profit u/s 115JB. The addition
has been made on erroneous views and / or non-appreciation of the facts and
law involved and the same is liable to be deleted."
35. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, we find the Assessing
Officer made disallowance of Rs.2,81,051/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) and Rs.
31
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
4,72,389/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(i). He, therefore, made the addition of the
above amount to the total income of the assessee u/s 115JB of the Act. In appeal,
the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.
36. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before
the Tribunal.
37. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly objected to the order of the CIT(A).
The ld. counsel submitted that the Special Bench, Delhi, of the Tribunal in the case
of ACIT vs. Vereet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27, has held that the
computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made
without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the
Income-tax Rules, 1962. He accordingly submitted that this issue being a covered
matter in favour of the assessee, the grounds raised by the assessee should be
allowed.
38. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A).
39. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides. We find, the
Special Bench, Delhi, of the Tribunal in the case of Vereet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) has held that the computation under clause (f) is to be made without
resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income-
tax Rules, 1962. Since the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the
decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, therefore, in absence of any contrary
32
ITA No.4574/Del/2015
ITA No.3796/Del/2015
material brought to our notice by the ld. DR, we set aside the order of the CIT(A)
on this issue and allow the ground raised by the assessee.
40. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal
filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.
The decision was pronounced in the open court on 13.11.2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(KULDIP SINGH) (R.K. PANDA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 13th November, 2019
dk
Copy forwarded to :
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
33
|
