Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT Audit :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
« From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Spl. Bench - the provisions made for doubtful debts, advances & investments, i.e. for unascertained liabilities, do not fall within the ambit of the Explanation to Sec.115-JA of the IT Act, 1961
December, 07th 2006

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL  :  SPECIAL BENCH  :  KOLKTA 

[ Before Shri Vimal Gandhi, Honble President, 

Shri G.D. Agrawal, Honble Vice-President & Shri Jugal Kishore, Accountant Member ] 

I.T.A. No.1304/Cal./2000

Assessment Year  :  1997-1998 

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

Special Range-5, Kolkata.

-vs-

M/s. Usha Martine Industries Ltd.,

Kolkata.

(Appellant)

 

(Respondent)

Appellant by  :  S/Shri B.D.Kale, M.W.Haque & S.K.Jai

Respondent by  :  S/Sri R.K. Mitra & B.K. Seal 

I.T.A. No.2437/Kol./2005

Assessment Year  :  2002-2003

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.,

Kolkata.

-vs-

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,

Circle-5, Kolkata.

(Appellant)

 

(Respondent)

 

I.T.A. No.2449/Kol./2005

Assessment Year  :  2002-2003 

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,

Circle-5, Kolkata.

-vs-

M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co.Ltd.,

Kolkata.

(Appellant)

 

(Respondent)

I.T.A. Nos. 1485 & 1486/Cal./2002
Assessment Years 1997-98 & 1998-99 

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Circle-4, Kolkata.

-vs-

M/s.Indian Container Leasing Co. Ltd.,

Kolkata.

(Appellant)

 

(Respondent)

Assessees by    :           S/Sri N.K. Poddar & A.K. Tibrewal

Department by  :           S/Sri B.D.Kaler, M.W. Haque & S.K. Jain

 

O R D E R

PER BENCH :

           

        This Special Bench has been constituted under Section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Honble President, I.T.A.T. in the case of M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. vide I.T.A.No.1304 (Cal)/2000 for assessment year 1997-98 to consider the following questions :-

 

 Whether, the provisions made for doubtful debts, advances & investments, i.e. for unascertained liabilities, falls within the purview of adjustments under Sec.115-JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether the A.O. was justified to make adjust of Rs.1,56,00,000/- in this case in computing the books profits ?

 2.     The case was fixed for hearing on 5.5.2006 and on this date the learned A/R of the assessee raised preliminary objection against the question referred for the consideration of the Special Bench.  He contended that the question framed has described the provision made for doubtful debts as unascertained liability.  The question is referred with a pre-conceived notion that the provision for doubtful debts, advances and investments is unascertained liability.  In such an event, the issue before the Special Bench would be diluted.  The Ld. A/R contended that the question may kindly be reframed by expunging the words unascertained liability.  The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, has stated that the question has rightly been framed.  The Special Bench referred the matter to the Honble President, I.T.A.T for necessary orders.  The Honble President directed that the entire appeal should be placed for consideration and disposal by the Special Bench.  Accordingly, the Special Bench proceeded to decide the Revenues appeal in the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd.

 3.     Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. vide application dated 19.6.2006 requested the permission of the Honble President for joining as intervener in the appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue for assessment year 2002-03 vide I.T.A.No.2437/Kol 2005 and I.T.A.No.2449/Kol/2005.  At the time of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned counsel, Sri N.K.Poddar, who appeared on behalf of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. that the assessee is a public sector undertaking of the Govt. of India.  Therefore, the permission of the Cabinet Committee on Dispute, in short COD, is required to the appellant before proceeding with this appeal.  The assessee as well as revenue both has applied to the COD and the COD vide minutes dated 12.5.2006 permitted the assessee as well as Revenue to proceed only with regard to ground No. 1 of their respective appeals, which reads as under :-

 ITA No.2437 (Kol)/05 (Assessees appeal) :

1.     That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in considering the provisions for doubtful debts, loans and advances amounting to Rs.92,74,305/- as provisions for meeting liabilities other than ascertained liabilities and adding it back to Book Profit u/s.115JB of the Act.

 ITA No.2449 (Kol)/05 (Revenues appeal) :

1      That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to exclude the addition of Rs.2,10,41,506/- on account of diminution in the value of investments of the assessee company in US-64 of UTI and the value of equity shares of India Marine Freight Containers MFG. Ltd. denying the decision in the case of Eyre Smelting (P) Ltd. (supra) and the statutory provisions of clause-C of the explanation to section 115JB.

 3.1.  He stated that the Special Bench is ceased in with both the above issues.  Therefore, the appeals by the assessee as well as Revenue should be heard and decided by the Special Bench.  The Honble President, I.T.A.T. accepted the assessees request in this regard and, therefore, the Special Bench proceeds to decide the appeal in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.

4.      Another assessee, M/s. Indian Container Leasing Co. Ltd. vide application dated 19.6.2006 has requested for the permission of the Honble President, I.T.A.T to join as intervener with regard to Revenues appeal for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 vide I.T.A.Nos.1485 & 1486 (Kol)/ 2002.  The Honble President, I.T.A.T. referred these two appeals also to the Special Bench as the issue raised in these appeals is identical to the issue raised before the Special Bench.  Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeals of the Revenue in the case of Indian Container Leasing Co. Ltd.

 5.     The ld. Departmental Representative Mr. M.W. Haque on behalf of the Revenue has first stated the fact of the case and submitted that the assessee M/s. Usha Martine Industries Ltd. has filed its return of income showing a gross loss of Rs.38,76,70,246.  However, it computed book profit under Section 115JA at Rs.14.52 crores.  The A.O. while processing the return u/s. 143(1)(a) added provision for doubtful debts to the tune of Rs.1,56,00,000/- and provision for Wealth-tax of Rs.1,25,000/- in such calculation of book profit under Section 115JA.  Such addition made by the A.O. in computation of book profit were deleted by this Tribunal while disposing I.T.A. No. 693/Cal./1999 dated 24.03.2000.

 6.     The A.O. has thereafter while framing the regular assessment under Section 143(3) has once again added the above provision in the income of the assessee vide order dated 14.3.2000 and such addition made by the A.O. has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) following the order of this Tribunal while disposing the appeal pertaining to assessment framed under Section 143(1)(a).  The ld. D.R. has also filed the above order and computation of income in his paper book filed before us.

 7.     The ld. Departmental Representative, Shri M.W. Haque has pointed out from the computation of total income filed by the assessee which is also available at page 1 of the paper book filed by the Revenue that the assessee has itself added such provisions in the net profit while computing its total income.  It has, therefore, been contended by the ld. D.R. that these provisions made by the assessee for bad and doubtful debts were not ascertained liability in the opinion of the assessee itself.

 8.     The ld. D.R. has submitted that there is a basic difference between the bad debts and the doubtful debts as bad debt denotes the debts which has been ascertained and are not recoverable at all, whereas doubtful debts are always unascertained.  It has been pointed out by the ld. D.R. that from the perusal of schedule of computation of net profit in accordance with the Section 349 of the Companies Act filed by the assessee before R.O.C., which is also available at page 17 of the paper book, it is seen that such provision for doubtful debts has been added in the net profit determined by the assessee for the purpose of Directors remuneration.  It has, therefore, been argued by the ld. D.R. that since the Companies Act itself recognize the concept of adding back of such provision for the purpose of arriving at the net profit calculated as per Companies Act in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Apollo Tyres Limited-vs.-CIT reported in 255 ITR 273, wherein it has been held that the A.O. does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss A/c.  It has, therefore, been submitted by the ld. D.R. that since the A.O. has disallowed the above provision in the Profit & Loss A/c. prepared as per Companies Act, such addition should have been upheld by the CIT(A).

 9.     The ld. D.R. has relied on the decision of the Honble Madras High Court in case of DCIT vs.- Beardsell Ltd. reported in 244 ITR 256 wherein it has been held by the Honble Madras High Court that if a debt had become irrecoverable, the same could be written off and deducted from the profit of the business and a debt, where the recovery was doubtful, could not be termed to be an ascertained liability as mentioned under Section 115J of the Act and could not be excluded from the book profits.  The ld. D.R. has accordingly pleaded that the facts of the present case are exactly identical to one disposed by the Honble Madras High Court in case of Beardsell Ltd. (supra), which strengthen the action of A.O. while adding such provisions for the computation of book profits.

 10.   The ld. D.R. has thereafter relied on the decision of the Calcutta Tribunal in case of ICI India Ltd. vs.- DCIT in ITA No. 2189/Cal./1995 dated 18.11.2002, a copy of which placed in the paper book was filed by the Revenue, which is available at pages 25 to 42, wherein the Tribunal while dealing with identical issue involved in the present case has decided the same in favour of Revenue following the decision of the Honble Madras High Court in case of Beardsell Ltd. (supra).  It has also been pointed out by the ld. D.R. that the Tribunal while disposing the appeal has noted down the fact that the Honble Madras High Court while deciding this case had applied the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs.- Jyoti Ltd. reported in 219 ITR 388 and in case of State Bank of Patiala vs.- CIT reported in 219 ITR 706 which was relevant for deciding the issue involved in the case.

 11.   The ld. D.R. has mentioned that though the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the A.O. following the decision of this Tribunal while disposing the appeal against the order framed under section 143(1)(a), but such order of Tribunal dated 28.3.2000 was without taking into consideration the decision of the Honble Madras High Court in case of Beardsell Ltd. (supra) which was passed on 14.03.2000.  Since this Tribunal while disposing the appeal against the order of 143(1)(a) had no benefit of the decision of the Honble Madras High Court in case of Beardsell Ltd. (supra), the action of ld. (CIT(A), in relying such order of Tribunal is not sustainable.

 12.   It has, therefore, been pleaded by the ld. D.R. Shri M.W. Haque that the A.O. has added the provisions for doubtful debts after taking into consideration the relevant facts and the legal interpretation as laid down in Income Tax Act and Companies Act and by following the decision of the Honble Madras High Court in case of Beardsell Ltd. (supra) and the decision of this Tribunal in ICI India Ltd.  The ld. D.R. also submitted that since the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition only on the basis of the decision of Tribunal in assessees own case in 143(1)(a) assessment, which was passed without having benefit of the decision of the Honble Madras High Court in case of Beardsell Ltd. (supra) and, therefore, does not hold good.  It has, therefore, been pleaded by the ld. D.R. that provision made by the assessee on account of bad and doubtful debts certainly carries the character of unascertained liabilities, which has to be added in the book profit made under Section 115JA.  Regarding provision for Wealth tax the Ld. D.R. has relied on the same argument, advanced by him for provision for doubtful debts.

 13.   In the rival submission, the ld. Authorized Representative for M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd., Sri Rahul Mitra opening the argument on behalf of the assessee stated that the A.O. has added back the above provisions on the alleged ground that the same represents a provision made towards unexplained liabilities by invoking provisions of clause (c) of the Explanation appended below to Section 115JA(2) of the Act.  The ld. Counsel submitted that the book profits under Section 115JA are to be drawn in accordance with the provisions of Part-II and Part-III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act and Explanation appended below Section 115JA(2) referred to certain adjustments by way of increase in respect of certain items as referred in clause (a) to (f), out of which in the present cases only clause (b) and (c) are material i.e. clause (b) which says that the amount carried to any reserve by whatever name called and clause (c) says about the amount or amounts set aside to provision made for meeting liabilities other than unascertained liabilities.  It has, therefore, been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that Special Bench has to decide as to whether or not the provisions for doubtful debts can be held as an amount carried to any reserve as referred to in clause (b) or as amount set aside to provision made for meeting unascertained liabilities, as referred to in clause (c). 

14.    The ld. Counsel for the assessee has thereafter submitted that the terms reserve and provision have not been defined in the Act and, therefore, in order to interpret the said terms, it was necessary to consider the meanings assigned to them, if any, in the Companies Act, since the relevant section, i.e. Section 115JA of the Act, deals with the assessment of companies.  In support of above assertion, he has relied on the decision of the honble Bombay High Court in case of Petrosil Oil Company Limited vs.- CIT reported in 236 ITR at page 220, which was rendered by following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Howrah Trading Company Limited vs.- CIT reported in 36 ITR 215.

 15.   Shri Mitra has submitted that for the purpose of constructing the provisions of the Act dealing with the assessment of Companies undefined words used in the Act should be interpreted by importing the definition enumerated to them in the Companies Act.  He has stated that the terms provision and reserve have been defined in clause 7(1) of Part-III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, where the term provision has been defined to mean, subject to sub-clause (2) of the said clause, any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets, or retained by way of providing for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy.  Whereas the term reserve has been defined in a negative way so as not to include any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in the value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability.  Shri Mitra has further pointed out that Clause 7(2) of the Part-III of the said Schedule provides that if any provision, which is made as per clause 7(1)(a) is in excess of the amount which in the opinion of the Directors is reasonably necessary for the purpose, the excess shall be treated for the purposes of the Schedule as a reserve and not as a provision.

 16.   It has, therefore, been pleaded by Shri Mitra that from the above interpretation of provisions, it is evident that the Companies Act envisages two types of provisions, namely amounts set apart for providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets and amounts set apart for providing for any known liability.  Shri Mitra has submitted that since clause (c) of the Explanation appended below section 115JA(2) of the Act provides that amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities other than ascertained liabilities should be added back to the net profit as per the profit and loss account for the purpose of computing the book profit within the meaning of the said statute, therefore, the provisions, which come within the ambit of clause (c) of the Explanation are only those made with respect to liabilities and that too on account of unascertained liabilities.  It was, therefore, emphasized by Shri Mitra that the said clause does not cover provisions made for diminution in value of assets.

 17.   Shri Mitra has pointed out that in the instant case, the impugned provision of Rs.1.56 crores has been made to provide for diminution in the values of certain assets, namely debtors, advances and investments of the assessee-company and not for any liability whether ascertained or unascertained and, therefore, the impugned provisions cannot be added back to the net profit as per the profit and loss account by allegedly invoking the provisions of clause (c) of the Explanation appended below section 115JA(2) of the Act.

 18.   Shri Mitra has also contended that the said provisions cannot also be held to be a reserve within the meaning of clause (b) of the Explanation appended below Section 115JA(2) of the Act as both auditors and directors in their report have opined that such provision was not in excess of the amount which in their opinion was reasonably necessary for the purpose and, therefore, cannot be added back to the net profit by allegedly invoking the provisions of clause (b) of the Explanation appended below section 115JA(2) of the Act.

 19    The ld. Counsel for the assessee in support of his above argument has placed reliance on the following decisions :-

 (i) Usha Martin Limited vs.- JCIT reported in 81 TTJ 518 (ITAT, Cal.);

 (ii) ACIT vs.- Eicher Ltd. reported in 101 TTJ 369 (ITAT, Del.);

 (iii) Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs.- DCIT [76 ITD 69 (Delhi-TM);

 (IV) CIT vs.- Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. reported in 251 ITR 15 (Bom.);

 (v) ACIT vs.- J.G. Vacuum Flasks reported in 83 ITD 242 (ITAT, Pune).

 The ld. Counsel Shri Mitra has submitted that the case laws relied by the ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue in case of Beardsell Ltd. (supra) and the decision of this Tribunal in case of ICI India Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable as though this has been dealt with under various perspectives.  And at the same time they have not considered the main issue that whether the provisions for doubtful debts is a deduction from the value of assets or a liability and such issue has only been discussed by the Honble Calcutta Tribunal in assessees own case, apart from Pune Bench in case of J.G. Vacuum Flasks (supra), which is very much relevant for determination of the issue for the consideration of this Special Bench.

 19.1  It has also been contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that both the Honble Madras High Court and this Tribunal while deciding the issue in case of I.C.I. India Ltd. has not dealt with the issue regarding provision for diminution in the value of assets as it was neither argued nor adjudicated by both the Honble High Court and this Tribunal. Ld. counsel Shri Mitra has stated that the ITAT, Pune Bench after carefully considering the relevant provision laid down in clause (c) of Explanation to Section 115JA has arrived at a conclusion that the provision for doubtful debts cannot be considered as provision for liability, much less than the ascertained liability as by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there is any liability on an assessee in present or in future when a debt is considered as debt or doubtful. Shri Mitra pointed out that it has further been held by the ITAT, Pune Bench that there is no obligation on an assessee to pay any sum to anybody in such case and only consequence, that follows in considering the bad or doubtful, will reduce or diminish the value of assets of the assessee on account of non-recovery of the debt after observing the above.  Sri Rahul Mitra Pleaded that it has been held by the ITAT, Pune Bench that the provision made towards bad or doubtful debts could not be said a provision to meet any liability.20.    Concluding his argument, the ld. counsel Shri Mitra has submitted that the provision for doubtful debts has rightly been deducted by the assessee for computation of book profit under Section 115JA and, therefore, the action of A.O. in adding back such provision holding the same as unascertained liability was not correct and the ld. CIT(A) was justified in reversing the action of A.O. after carefully understanding the law and following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessees own case and such order of ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 

21.    Ld. Senior counsel Shri N.K. Poddar appearing on and behalf of M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. in I.T.A. Nos. 2437 & 2449/Kol./2005 and in case of Indian containers placed his reliance and endorsement on the arguments advanced by Shri Rahul Mitra, and he further submitted that from the perusal of Schedule-VI of Companies Act, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination, the provision for bad and doubtful debts can be held as unascertained liability.  He has filed detailed paper book in which he has annexed extract from the Companies Act and the extract of various publications such as dictionary for accountants, terms used in financial statements, text books on accountancy, accounting standard announced by I.C.A.I., etc. and decisions of various Courts and Tribunals.

22.    Ld. senior counsel Shri Poddar has first drawn the attention of this Bench on pages 8, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19and 20 of paper book, wherein the extract from the Companies Act, 1956 has been annexed.  It has been pointed out by Shri Poddar that from the perusal of different nature of liabilities and assets as mentioned therein in Schedule-VI of Companies Act, it is apparent that all liabilities are specified and clearly mentioned. Ld. Senior counsel has pointed but that the current liabilities and provisions have been defined in a broader way in Schedule-VI of the Companies Act wherein the nature of liabilities and provisions along with the contingent liability has clearly been mentioned and nowhere provision for bad and doubtful debts appeared in such current liabilities and provisions as required to be mentioned under the head current liabilities and provisions of the balance-sheet prepared as per Schedule-VI of Companies Act, 1956.

 23.   The ld. senior counsel Shri N.K. Poddar has thereafter submitted that such provision is in the nature of diminution in the value of assets as also recognized by the Part-II of Schedule-VI of the Companies Act, which enumerates the requirements as to Profit & Loss A/c. as per Companies Act.

23.1   Ld. Senior Counsel Shri N.K. Poddar has pleaded that Part-III of Schedule-VI makes the word provision and liability more clear and understandable while interpreting the various words used therein.  It has been stated by Shri Poddar that as per Part-III, clause-7 to Schedule VI of Companies Act, the word provision has been defined as under :-

 The expression provision shall, subject to sub-clause (2) of this clause, mean any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation renewals or diminution in value of assets, or retained by way of providing for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy

 23.2. The word liability has been defined as under :-

 The expression liability shall include all liabilities in respect of expenditure contracted for and all disputed or contingent liabilities, where (a) any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets, not being an amount written off in relation to fixed assets before the commencement of this Act; or

 (b) any amount retained by way of providing for any known liability; is in excess of the amount which in the opinion of the directors is reasonably necessary for the purpose, the excess shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as a reserve and not as a provision.

23.3     Shri Poddar has further contended that the expression reserve and capital reserve has also been specified by clause 7(b) and 7(c) of Part-III which mean as under :-

(b) the expression reserve shall not, subject as aforesaid, include any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability;

(c) the expression capital reserve shall not include any amount regarded as free for distribution through the profit and loss account; and the expression revenue reserve shall mean any reserve other than a capital reserve.

23.4     Shri Poddar has thereafter contended that the above provision as laid down in Schedule-VI of Companies Act has to be understood with the help of various legal interpretations as laid down in various dictionaries for Accountants and the authority.  He thereafter has first referred to the dictionary for accountants by Eric L Kohler, for the meaning of the word provision, wherein it reads as under :-

Provision 1 -   A charge for an estimated expense or loss or for a shrinkage in the cost of an asset offsetting an addition to a valuation account such as a reserve or accumulation of depreciation or the accrual of a liability such as an income tax.

2. (British usage) (a)  An amount entered on the books of account covering an estimated or accrued liability.  (b) The amount of a reserve for depreciation, bad debts or inventory decline; a valuation account.

23.5     He has thereafter referred to the black law dictionary for the meaning of provision, which reads as under :-

Foresight of the chance of an event happening, sufficient to indicate that any present undertaking upon which its assumed realization might exert a natural and proper influence was entered upon in full contemplation of it as a future possibility.

In commercial law. Funds remitted by the drawer of a bill of exchange to the drawee in order to meet the bill, or property remaining in the drawees hands or due from him to the drawer, and appropriated to that purpose.

In ecclesiastical law.  A nomination by the pope to an English benefice before it became void; the term was afterwards indiscriminately applied to any right of patronage exerted or usurped by the pope.

In French law. An allowance or alimony granted by a judge to one of the parties in a cause for his or her maintenance until a definite judgment is rendered.

In English History.  A name given to certain statutes or acts of parliament, particularly those intended to curb the arbitrary or usurped power of the sovereign, and also to certain other ordinances or declarations having the force of law.

A term used in the reign of Henry III. To designate enactments of the King in Council. Perhaps less solemn than statutes.  The term statutes was a later term with a changed conception of the solemnity of a statute, and is one that cannot easily be defined.  It came into use in Edward I.s reign, supplanting provisions which is characteristic of Henry IIIs reign, which had supplanted assize, characteristic of the reign of Henry II. Richard and John Maltland, 2 Sel. Essays in Anglo-Am. Leg. Hist.80

23.6.    He has also referred to para 13.14 of guidance notes and terms used for financial statements by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India which specify the provisions as under :-

Provision

An amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation or diminution in value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability the amount of which cannot be determined with substantial accuracy.

23.7     Shri Poddar has also stated that the word reserve has been defined by the I.C.A.I. vide its guidance notes at para 14.04 as under :-

Reserve :- The portion of earnings, receipts or other surplus of an enterprise (whether capital or revenue) appropriated by the management for a general or a specific purpose other than a provision for depreciation or diminution in the value of assets or for a known liability.  The reserves are primarily of two types : capital reserves and revenue reserves.

24.       It has been pleaded by the ld. Senior Counsel Shri N.K. Poddar that for the better understanding of the nature of provision for bad and doubtful debts, it is useful to read both reserve and provision together and has pointed out that these two expressions have been elaborately discussed and interpreted in the books of accountancy by various famous authors and authorities in the field of accountancy and has annexed the extract of such books in the paper book, wherein the word reserve and surplus has been interpreted and is being reproduced hereunder for the better convenience :

Reserves and Provisions (Extract from Books of Accountancy

Written by William Pickles (Third Edition)(1)  Reserves amounts set aside out of profits and other surpluses which are not designed to meet any liability, contingency, commitment or diminution in value of assets known to exist at the date of balance sheet.

(2) Provisions amounts set aside out of profits and other surpluses to provide for-

(a) depreciation, renewals, or diminution in value of assets, or

(b) any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy.

It follows therefore that

(1) Any amount set aside for the purposes described in (2)(a) and (b) (above) in excess of estimated requirements much be regarded as a reserve and

(2) Sums set aside to meet known liabilities of which the amount can be determined with substantial accuracy do not fall within the definition of a provision and should therefore be described as accruals or accrued liabilities.

Reserves are in effect part of the undistributed profits of the business and therefore part of the proprietorship, whereas provisions and accruals are a diminution of proprietorship in the form of a liability or diminution of an asset.  The former are broadly appropriations of, the latter charges against profits.

25.       Ld. Senior  Counsel Shri Poddar has thereafter pointed out that the terminology provision for bad and doubtful debts has been interpreted by Spicer & Pegler, 17th Edition in their book Book Keeping and Accounts and has annexed the extract of such book, wherein the provision for bad debts has been defined as under :-

When a debt is found to be irrecoverable, it should be written off as a loss by means of a journal entry debiting bad debts account and crediting the account of the defaulting debtor.  At the end of the accounting period the bad debts account is closed by transfer to the Profit and Loss Account.  Should a debt which has been written off as bad be subsequently recovered, in whole or in part, the debtors personal account should be debited and bad debts account credited, the cash received then being credited to the debtors account.  This is preferable to posting the amount recovered direct from the cash book to the credit of the bad debts account without making any entry in the debtors personal account, since it is desirable, for future reference, that this account should contain a full history of the occurrence.

After all debts which are known to be irrecoverable have been written off, there may still be some doubtful accounts for which it would be prudent to provide.  A provision for bad or doubtful debts may be calculated either by reference to the amounts of the specific debts which are regarded as doubtful, or by way of a percentage on the total debts outstanding.  In many businesses experience shows that the percentage of bad debts to outstanding debtors does not fluctuate widely from year to year and in such cases this method may, as a rule quite safely be employed.

25.1     Mr. Poddar has also elaborately pointed out the approach of various Court on the basis of the following judgment :-

(i)         Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs.- Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53      (SC);

(ii)        Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs.- CIT [1981] 132 ITR 559 (SC);

(iii)       CIT vs.- Eyre Smelting Pvt. Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 857 (Cal.);

(iv)       CIT vs.- Jugantar P. Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 619 (Cal.);

(v)        CIT vs.- Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 15 (Bom.);

(vi)       Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs.- CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC);

(vii)      M.J. Exports Ltd. vs.- JCIT [2004] 88 ITD 18 (Mum.).

26.       Concluding his argument, Shri Poddar has submitted that Explanation (c) to Section 115JA(2) is not applicable in case of assessee in view of clause (7)( of Part-III of Companies Schedule, wherein the word provision has clearly been defined a any amount written of or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets, or retained by way of providing for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy.  Shri Poddar has submitted that from the above definition and interpretation as mentioned elaborately in different text books of accountancy pointed out by him, it is apparent that the provision in this case is intended to meet the anticipated diminution of the value of assets of the assessee, resulting from unrealized debts and since the contingencies were anticipated at the date of balance-sheet and the amounts set apart from this item duly existed at the date of the balance-sheet, which has to be deducted for computation of book profit under Section 115JA. Shri Poddar has thereafter referred to his paper book and submitted that the issues involved in the case of both the assessee i.e. Balmer Lawrie and Indian Containers are similar which have been referred to in this Special Bench by the Honble President, which should be decided in favour of assessee taking into consideration the various decisions of Tribunal and High Courts and after due interpretation terminology as defined in various books of accountancy in this regard.

27.       Replying to the above argument, Ld. Senior D.R. Shri S.K. Jain has submitted that the Honble Chennai High Court has already elaborately discussed the issue involved before this Special Bench in case of Beardsell Limited (supra), wherein it was clearly held by the Honble Madras High Court that the provision for bad debts falls under clause (c) to the Explanation (1) of sub-section (2) of section 115JA of the Act.  Shri Jain has pointed out the above decision of the Honble Madras High Court was made against the order passed under section 143(1)(a), which strengthen the plea of the revenue in treating such provision as unascertained liability as the Honble Chennai High Court ha found such adjustment prima facie correct even in case of intimation under section 143(1)(a).

28.       The Ld. D.R. Shri Jain has thereafter submitted that the provision for bad and doubtful debts has to be treated as unascertained liability and has submitted following reason in support of his argument :-

(a) The assessee has not written off such bad debts in the books of accounts;

(b) Such provisions for bad and doubtful debts were not deduced from the respective ledger account;

(c) The assessee offered the same for taxation purpose while filing computation of income;

(d) Honble Chennai High Court has dealt with the issue in an elaborate way and such decision of the Honble Madras High Court has not been overruled by the

Apex Court

(e) The decision of this Bench in ITA No. 2189/Cal./1995 dated 18.11.2002 in case of ICI India Ltd. is squarely applicable to the present case as the same has been passed even after considering and discussing the decision of Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. by Honble Mumbai High Court which has been relied heavily by the ld. counsels for different assessees, whereas the judgment of Usha Martin High Court;

(f) The decision of Eichar Motors relied by ld. counsel for assessees, has been passed without considering the decision of Honble Madras High Court;

(g) The case laws relied by Shri Poddar are not applicable.

(h) Ld.Senior D.R. Shri Jain has alternatively submitted that if clause is held to be inapplicable, then clause (b) should be invoked which says for disallowance of reserve made by the assessee.  The provision made by the assessee for bad & doubtful debt is in the nature of reserve, though it is termed as provision.  Therefore, the same is liable for addition to book profit as per clause (b) of Sec. 115AJ of the I.T. Act.

 29.       Shri Poddar in his reply has submitted that the Honble Chennai High Court has not dealt with the entire issue and has pointed out that the High Court in case of Beardsell Ltd. has not dealt with the distinction between assets and liabilities because it was not argued before the Court.  He has pointed out that even otherwise ITAT Pune Bench in case of ICI Ltd. has dealt with the issue elaborately after taking into consideration the various case laws and by interpreting various terminology used in the books of accountancy, Income Tax law and the Company Law.  It has, therefore, been pleaded by Shri Poddar that the issue has to be decided in favour of assessee.

 30.       We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us.  We will first take up the Revenues appeal in the case of M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd.  In this appeal by the Revenue, the following ground has been raised  :-

 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the sum of Rs.1,56,00,000/- being provision for Doubtful debts, Advances & Investment and Rs.1,25,000/- being provision for wealth-tax could not be added back to the net profit for the purpose of computing the book profit within the meaning of Section 115JA of the I.T. Act since the same do not fall under any of the Clauses (a) to (f) of the Explanation-2 of Sec.115JA(2) of the Act.

 31.       The facts of the case are that the assessee has filed a return disclosing total loss of Rs.38,76,70,250/-.  The A.O. determined the net loss at Rs.18,64,93,786/-.  The A.O. further found that the net profit disclosed by the assessee as per P/L Account was Rs.14,51,90,597.  He, therefore, determined the book profit as per Sec.115JA and charged the tax on the book profit as per Sec.115JA.  The computation of the book profit made by the A.O. reads as under :-

 Computation of profit u/s. 115JA

of the I.T. Act, 1961 :

 Profit as per profit & loss a/c.                                           Rs.14,51,90,597/-

Add: a) Provision for doubtful debts, 
            Advances and investments-

            as discussed.                            Rs.15600000

 

            b) Provision for wealth-tax as

            per accounts.                            Rs.   125000                Rs.   1,57,25,000/-

                                                Book Profit                          Rs.16,09,15,597/-

 

30% thereof                                                                     Rs.4,82,74,680/-

 

Tax payable u/s.115JA @ 43%                                            Rs. 2,07,58,112/-

 

32.       Before the C.I.T.(A), the assessee challenged the addition of Rs..56 crores and Rs.1,25,000/- made by the A.O. Both the above additions were deleted by the C.I.T.(A).  Hence this appeal by the Revenue.

 33.       We will first take up the addition with regard to provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs.1.56 crores.  Sec. 115JA as it stood at the relevant time reads as under : -

 Deemed income relating to certain companies.

115JA.  (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where in the case of an assessee, being a company, the total income, as computed under this Act in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1997 (hereafter in this section referred to as the relevant previous year) is less than thirty per cent of its book profit, the total income of such assessee chargeable to tax for the relevant previous year shall be deemed to be an amount equal to thirty per cent of such book profit.

 

(2) Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the purposes of this section prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) :

Provided that while preparing profit and loss account, the depreciation shall be calculated on the same method and rates which have been adopted for calculating the depreciation for the purpose of preparing the profit and loss account laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with the provisions of section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) :

Provided further that where a company has adopted or adopts the financial year under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), which is different from the previous year under the Act, the method and rates for calculation of depreciation shall correspond to the method and rates which have been adopted for calculating the depreciation for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year.

Explanation. For the purposes of this section, book profit means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2), as increased by

(a) the amount of income-tax paid or payable, and the provision therefore; or

(b) the amounts carried to any reserves by whatever name called; or

(c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities; or

(d) the amount by way of provision for losses of subsidiary companies; or

(e) the amount or amounts of dividends paid or proposed; or

(f) the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which any of the provisions of Chapter III applies;

if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (f) is debited to the profit and loss account, and as reduced by, -

(i) the amount withdrawn from any reserves or provisions if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account.

      Provided that, where this section is applicable to an assessee in any previous year (including the relevant previous year), the amount withdrawn from reserves created or provisions made in a previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1997 shall not be reduced from the book profit unless the book profit of such year has been increased by those reserves or provisions (out of which the said amount was withdrawn) under this Explanation; or

(ii) the amount of income to which any of the provisions of Chapter  III applies, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or

(iii)the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account.

      Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, the loss shall not include depreciation; or

(iv) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of generation or generation and distribution of power; or

(v) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking located in an industrially backward State or district as referred to in sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of section 80-IA, for the assessment years such industrial undertaking is eligible to claim a deduction of hundred per cent of the profits and gains under sub-section (5) of section 80-IA; or

(vi) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility as defined under sub-section (12) of section 80-IA, and subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down in sub-section (4A) of section 80-IA; or

(vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986) and ending with the assessment year during which the entire net worth of such company becomes equal to or exceeds the accumulate losses.

       Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, net worth shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (ga) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986); [or]

       [(viii) the amount of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHC, computed under clause (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A), as the case may be, of that section, and subject to the conditions specified in sub-sections (4) and (4A) of that section;

 (ix) the amount of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHE, computed under sub-section (3) of that section.]

 (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the determination of the amounts in relation to the relevant previous year to be carried forward to the subsequent year or years under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 32 or sub-section (3) of section 32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section or sub-section (3) of section 74A.

 (4) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in this section.

 34.       From the above it is evident that the provision of Sec. 115JA has an over-riding effect upon the other provisions of the Income-tax Act.  It is applicable only in the case of a company.  As per this section, the A.O. has to first compute the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of the income-tax Act.  Thereafter, he has to compute 30% of the book profit..  Then he has to compare total income as computed as per the provisions of I.T. Act with 30% of book profit computed as per Sec. 115JA.  If 30% of the book profit is more than the total income, then 30% of the book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee for such previous year.  As per sub-sec.(2) the assessee has to prepare the P/L Account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Parts-II & III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act.  The Explanation defines the words book profit which Means net profit as shown in the P/L Account for the relevant previous year.  Such book profit has to be increased by the items No. (a) to (f) of the Explanation if they are debited to the P/L Account and from such profit items No. (i) to (ix) of the Explanation are to be reduced.  The figure arrived at after the above exercise would be the book profit of the assessee for the relevant previous year.

35.       Honble Apex Court has examined the powers of the A.O. while computing the book profit for the purpose of Sec.115J in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra), wherein Their Lordships observed as under :- 

The Assessing officer, while computing the book profits of a company under section 115J of the Income-tax, 1961, has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act.  The Assessing Officer, thereafter, has the limited power of making increases and reductions as provided for in the Explanation to section 115J.  The Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profits shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation.  The use of the words in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act in section 151J was made for the limited purpose of empowering the Assessing Officer to rely upon the authentic statement of accounts of the company.  While so looking into the accounts of the company, the Assessing Officer has to accept the authenticity of the accounts with reference to the provisions of the Companies Act, which obligate the company to maintain its accounts in a manner provided by the Act and the same to be scrutinized and certified by statutory auditors and approved by the company in general meeting and thereafter to be filed before the Registrar of Companies who has a statutory obligation also to examine and be satisfied that the accounts of the company are maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act. Sub-section (1A) of section 115J does not empower the Assessing Officer to embark upon a fresh enquiry in regard to the entries made in the books of account of the company. 

36.       From the above it is evident that the A.O. has to accept the authenticity of the accounts maintained in accordance with the provisions of Parts-II & III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act, which are certified by the Auditors and approved by the company in the general meeting.  He has only the power of examining whether the books of accounts are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act.  The A.O. does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the P/L Account except to the extent provided in the Explanation given in Sec. 115J.  The above observation of the

Honble Apex Court

given with reference to Sec.115J would be squarely applicable with regard to the provision of Sec.115JA also because both the provisions are parimateria.

 36.1     It was contended by the Ld. D.R. that the assessee itself added the provision for bad and doubtful debt while computing its total income.  Therefore, the same should also be included in the book profit for the purpose of Sec.115JA.  We are unable to accept this contention of the Ld. D.R. because the computation of total income for the purpose of I.T. Act is not relevant while computing the book profit.  As we have already observed that the A.O. has to prepare two parallel computation one for determining the book profit as per Sec.115JA.  While computing the total income, he has to make the additions and allow deductions as per provisions of the Income-tax Act.  However, those additions or deductions as permissible under the various provisions of the Income-tax Act would not be relevant while determining the book profit.  While determining the book profit.  While determining the book profit, additions/deductions are to be made as given in the Explanation.  The assessee might have added the provision for bad and doubtful debt while determining its total income, because the deduction for the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not permissible while computing the total income for the purpose of Income-tax Act.  However, merely because the deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debt is not allowable in computing the total income of the assessee would be no ground for including the same in the book profit.

 37.       It was further contended by the Ld. D.R. that for the purpose of computing the net profit for Directors remuneration u/s.349 of the Companies Act, the assessee itself has included the provision for bad and doubtful debt in the net profit.  In this regard, he referred to page-17 of the Revenues paper book.  He contended that when for the purpose of Companies Act the assessee itself has included the provision for bad and doubtful debt in the net profit, the same has also be included for the purpose of computing the book profit, because for the purpose of Sec.115JA the assessee has to prepare the P/L Account and balance sheet as per the provisions of the Companies Act.  We find that the assessee has computed the net profit for computing the Directors remuneration as under :-

                                                                                            For the year

Ender 31st

March, 1977

                                                                                  (Rupees in Thousands)

16  SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT IN

ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 349 OF COMPANIES

ACT, 1956 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTORS

REMUNERATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST

MARCH 1977.

Profit before Taxation as per Profit and Loss Account                                   14,62,80

 

Add: Depreciation as per Account                                                    8,07,65

        Loss on sale of Fixed Assets as per Account                                  3,06

        Provision for Doubtful debts, Advances and                              1,56,00

                                                            Investments

Provision for Wealth tax as per Account                                         1,25

Profit on sale of Fixed Assets considering                                       1,28            9,69,24

            Depreciation under Section 350                                                          24,32,04

                                                                                   

Less: Depreciation under Section 350                                                                     12,12,86

 

Add : Directors Remuneration                                                                                 56,39

                                                                                                                                12,7557

 

38.       We find that Sec.198 of the Companies Act provides overall maximum limit for managerial remuneration payable to the Directors which is at 11% of the net profit of the company computed in the manner laid down in Secs.349 to 351 of the Companies Act.  Section 349 of the Companies Act reads as under :-

Determination of net profits.

349.(1) In computing for the purpose of section 348, the net profits of a company in any financial year-

(a) credit shall be given for the sums specified in sub-section (2), and credit shall not be given for those specified in sub-section (3); and

(b) the sums specified in sub-section (4) shall be deducted, and those specified in sub-section (5) shall not be deducted.

(2) In making the computation aforesaid, credit shall be given for the following sums :-bounties and subsidies received from any Government, or any public authority constituted or authorized in this behalf, by any Government, unless and except in so far as the Central Government otherwise directs.

 (3) In making the computation aforesaid, credit shall not be given for the following sums:-

(a) profits, by way of premium, on shares or debentures of the company, which are issued or sold by the company;

(b) profits on sales by the company of forfeited shares;

(c) profits of a capital nature including profits from the sale of the undertaking or any of the undertakings of the company or of any part thereof;

(d) profits from the sale of any immovable property or fixed assets of a capital nature comprised in the undertaking or any of the undertakings of the company, unless the business of the company consists, whether wholly or partly, of buying and selling any such property or assets;

[Provided that where the amount for which any fixed asset is sold exceeds the written down value thereof referred to in section 350, credit shall be given for so much of the excess as is not higher than the difference between the original cost of that fixed asset and its written down value.]

(4) In making the computation aforesaid, the following sums shall be deducted:-

(a) all the usual working charges;

(b) directors remuneration;

(c) bonus or commission paid or payable to any member of the companys staff, or to any engineer, technician or person employed or engaged by the company, whether on a whole-time or on a part-time basis;

(d) any tax notified by the Central Government as being in the nature of a tax on excess or abnormal profits;

(e) any tax on business profits imposed for special reasons or in special circumstances and notified by the Central Government in its behalf;

(f) interest on debentures issued by the company;

(g) interest on mortgages executed by the company and on loans and advances secured by a charge on its fixed or floating assets;

(h) interest on unsecured loans and advances;

(i) expenses on repairs, whether to immovable or to movable property, provided the repairs are not of a capital nature;

(j) outgoings [inclusive of contributions made under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 293];

(k) depreciation to the extent specified in section 350;

(l) the excess of expenditure over income, which had arisen in computing the net profits in accordance with this section in any year which begins at or after the commencement of this Act, in so far as such excess has not been deducted in any subsequent year preceding the year in respect of which the net profits have to be ascertained;

(m) any compensation of damages to be paid in virtue of any legal liability, including a liability arising from a breach of contract;

(n) any sum paid by way of insurance against the risk of meeting any liability such as is referred to in clause (m);

(o) debts considered bad and written off or adjusted during the year of account.

(5) In making the computation aforesaid, the following sums shall not be deducted:-

(a) the remuneration payable to the managing agent;

(b) income tax and super tax payable by the company under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or any other tax on the income of the company not falling under clauses (d) and (e) of sub-section (4);

(c) any compensation, damages or payments made voluntarily, that is to say, otherwise than in virtue of a liability such as is referred to in clause (m) of sub-section (4);

(d) loss of a capital nature including loss on sale of the undertaking or any of the undertakings of the company or of any part thereof not including any excess referred to in the proviso to section 350 of the written down value of any asset which is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed over its sale proceeds or its scrap value.

39.       From the above it is evident that as per Sec.349 of the Companies Act, various items are to be included into and excluded from the net profit as disclosed in the P/L Account.  However, for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s.115JA, the assessee has to first prepare the P/L Account as per Parts-II & III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act and thereafter makes adjustment as provided in Explanation to Sec. 115JA.  That the adjustments required to be made to the net profit disclosed in the P/L Account for the purpose of Sec.349 of the Companies Act are quite different than the adjustment required to be made under Explanation to Sec.115JA of the I.T. Act.  Therefore, merely because some item debited to P/L Account is required to be added to the net profit for the purpose of computing the Directors remuneration, it is not necessary that the same is to be included in the book profit for the purpose of Sec.115JA.  For the purpose of Sec.115JA, the A.O. can increase the net profit determined as per P/L Account prepared as per Parts-II & III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act only to the extent permissible under Explanation thereto.  The Explanation has provided six items, i.e. items No. (a) to (f) which if debited to the P/L Account can be added back to the net profit for computing the book profit.  The provision for bad and doubtful debt has been debited to the P/L Account.  Therefore, it can be added back to the net profit if it falls within any of the items provided under the Explanation.  As per Revenue, it falls within the category of item (c) and alternatively within item No.(b).  We will first deal with item No. (c) which reads as under :-

The amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities

Thus, the assessees case would fall within the ambit of item (c) if (i) the amount is set aside to any provision; (ii) the provision is made for meeting liability; and (iii) the provision should be for other than ascertained liability, i.e. it should be for unascertained liability.  All the above three ingredients should be satisfied so as to bring the provision within the ambit of item (c) of the Explanation to Sec. 115JA.

40.       In the case of the assessee it is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.1.56 crores has been set aside as provision for bad and doubtful debts.  Therefore, now the question remains whether this provision is for meeting the liability?  If answer is yes, whether such liability was unascertained liability.

41.       It is vehemently contended by the Ld. D.R. that the provision of bad and doubtful debt is a provision for unascertained liability, in support of which heavy reliance has been placed upon the decision of Honble Madras High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Beardshell Ltd. (supra) and the decision of I.T.A.T., Kolkata Bench in the case of ICI India Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra).

41.1.    In the case of Beardshell Ltd. (supra), the assessee is a public sector company which filed the return showing total income of Rs.33,49,950 computed as per the provisions of Sec.115J of the I.T. Act.  The A.O. in the order passed u/s. 143(1)(a) added the provision created by the assessee for bad and doubtful debt amounting to Rs.46,64,750/- on the ground that the provision made is not for the ascertained liabilities.  The assessee-company filed the petition u/s.154 for rectification of the order passed by the A.O. u/s.143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act.  The same was rejected by the AO.  The C.I.T.(A) also upheld the order passed by the A.O.  On appeal, the I.T.A.T. deleted the addition.  On further appeal by the Revenue, Their Lordships of Madras High Court allowed the Revenues appeal and held at page 259 of 244 I.T.R. as under :-

The only contention raised by the appellant herein is that the sum of Rs.46,64,750 is not an ascertained liability to be excluded in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year under section 115J of the Act and that, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in directing the assessing authority to rectify the alleged mistake of inclusion of the above said amount in the book profit under section 154 of the Act.  Learned counsel appearing for the respondent company contends contra stating that the provision made for bad and irrecoverable debt in the return has to be sustained by the assessing authority and he has not right to make adjustment to include the same in the book profit, under section 143(1)(a) of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) who sustained the order of the assessing authority to include the sum of Rs.46,64,750 in the book profit as an unascertained liability under section 115J (1A)(c) of the Act.  Clause (c) of the Explanation to section 115J of the Act would reveal that book profit means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section(1A) as increased by the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities.  It is evident from the above said section that unless a provision is made for ascertained liabilities, the provision made has to be included in book profit, for the purpose of taxation under section 115J of the Act.  The respondent claimed exclusion for the sum of Rs.46,64,750 from the profit and loss account on the ground that the same has been made as provision for irrecoverable debts due to the respondent company.  If a debt has become irrecoverable as claimed by the respondent company the said company ought to have written off the debt and should have deducted it from the profit of the business to the extent written off.  A debt, the recovery of which is doubtful, will not amount to writing off the same by the assessee concerned.  It cannot also be termed to be an ascertained liability as mentioned in section 115J of the Act.

42.       The I.T.A.T., Kolkata Bench in the case of ICI India Ltd. (supra) followed the above decision and held as under :-

6.        We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below.  We observe that the A.O. has made a prima facie adjustment of provision made for bad and doubtful debts and advances treating the same as uncertained liability by passing of order u/s.154 of the Act with a view to rectifying the intimation processed u/s.143(1)(a).  We further observe that the CIT(A) has made a categorical finding that the provision for bad and doubtful debts and advances was a provision for unascertained liability thereby attracting the provisions as contained in clause (c) of Explanation to sec. 115J(1A) of the Act.  We further observe that it is not the case of the assessee that the provision made for bad and doubtful debts and advances was for an ascertained bad and doubtful debts.  It is, therefore, clear that the provision for doubtful debts made by the assessee is a liability of an unascertained nature.  A similar issue had come for consideration before the Honble Madras High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Beardsell Ltd. (supra) wherein similar adjustment on account of doubtful debts was made to the net profit in course of processing the return of income u/s.143(1)(a) by treating the same as a provision made for unascertained liability.

43.       However, at the time of hearing before us, it was vehemently contended by the assessees learned counsels, Sri Mitra and Sri Poddar that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not a provision for meeting the liability.  They also contended that this argument was neither raised before the Honble Madras High Court nor before the I.T.A.T., Kolkata Bench.  Once a provision is not for meeting the liability, the question whether the liability is ascertained or unascertained does not arise.  It was also contended that a provision can be for a diminution in the value of asset and also for meeting the liability.  In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the meaning of the word provision given in Companies Act, various dictionaries, Books of Accountancy as well as by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.  As per Sec.115JA, the P/L Account is to be prepared as per Parts-II & III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act.  We find that Part-III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act defines the expression provision which means any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in the value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy.  The identical definition of the word provision is given by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in the guidance notes issued for its members.  Similar definition is given in the books of accountancy by William Pickles.  Thus, the provision can be for (i) depreciation; (ii) renewals; (iii) diminution in the value of assets; and (iv) for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy.

43.1.    Now the question is whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt is the provision for diminution in the value of asset or for known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy.  The provision for bad and doubtful debt is made when the assessee is of the opinion that its entire debt may not be realized and part of the debt may become irrecoverable.  However, when the amount of such irrecoverable debt cannot be ascertained with substantial accuracy, the provision is made for bad and doubtful debt.  Debts are of two types.  One debt payable by the assessee i.e. where the assessee has to pay amount to others.  This would be liability in the hands of the assessee.  Second debt receivable by the assessee, i.e. where the assessee has to receive the amount from others. This would be asset in the hands of the assessee. Admittedly, the debt under consideration is debt receivable by the assessee. The provision for bad and doubtful debt would always be made with reference debt to receivable, where there is doubt about full realization of debt. The provision is made to cover up the probable diminution in the value of asset, i.e. debt which is amount receivable by the assessee. The following example would make the position more clear. In the accounts of an assessee there are outstanding debts in the names of several parties totaling to Rs.1 crore. The assessee is of the opinion that the entire debt of Rs.1 crore may not be realized. It opines that only 90% 0f the debt would be realized and, therefore, it made a provision for Rs.10 lacs for bad and doubtful debts. By making this provision, the assessee is valuing its asset, viz., debt, at Rs.90 lacs as against the book figure of Rs.1 crore. Thus, the provision for bad and doubtful debt is the provision for diminution in the value of asset, i.e. debt. The provision for bad and doubtful debt cannot be said to be a provision for liability, because even if the a debt is not recovered, no liability would be fastened upon the assessee. In the above example if as against the outstanding debt of Rs.1 crore only Rs.90 lacs has been realized, then due to non-realization of the debt of  Rs.10 lacs there is no question of any liability upon the assessee. The debt is the amount receivable by the assessee and not any liability payable by the assessee and, therefore, any provision towards irrecoverability of the debt cannot be said to be provision for liability. Once it is held that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not a provision for any liability, the question whether the liability is ascertained liability or unascertained liability does not arise.

43.2.    Reverting back to the decision of Honble Madras High Court in the case of Breadshell Ltd. (supra), we find that in the above case the Honble Madras High Court considered whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt is an ascertained liability or is not an ascertained liability. It was never contended before Their Lordships that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not a liability at all but the provision is only for diminution in the value of asset. Therefore, Their Lordships had no occasion to deal with this vital aspect, i.e. whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt is a provision of the diminution of the value of the asset or a provision of known liability. Similarly, I.T.A.T., Kolkata Bench in the case of ICI India Ltd. (supra) also proceeded with the presumption that the provision made for bad and doubtful debt was a provision for liability and, therefore, relying upon the decision of Honble Madras High Court in the case of Breadshell Ltd. (supra) confirmed the addition in this regard. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (supra). However, we find that in the above case also the question whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt is diminution in the value of the asset or a provision for liability was neither argued nor considered. The Honble High Court deleted the addition because they agreed with the assessees contention that the provision was for ascertained liability. Therefore, the above case would also not be applicable while considering whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt is at all a provision for liability.

43.3.    The learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) wherein the A.O. has made the addition for provision for bad and doubtful debts by way of prima facie adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a). On appeal to the I.T.A.T., the Ld. J.M. upheld the addition on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was unascertained liability. However, the Ld. A.M. was of the view that the provision was not for liability but it was for bad and doubtful debts which were, in fact, assets and not liabilities. Therefore, the Ld. A.M. was of the view that the adjustment could not be made for provision for bad and doubtful debts under clause (c) of Explanation to Sec.115J of the I.T. Act. When the matter came up for consideration before the Third Member, it was pointed out by the assessees counsel that, in fact, there was no increase in the provision in the year under consideration. The Third Member called for the report from the A.O. who affirmed that during the year under consideration there was no increase in the provision for bad doubtful debts. Accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Thus the learned Third Member had no occasion to consider whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt was a provision for liability ot the provision for diminution in the value of assets. Therefore, this decision would also not be of much help to the assessee.

 43.4.    We find that the I.T.A.T., Pune Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vacuum Flasks (P)Ltd. has considered the issue whether the provision for doubtful debt can at all be said to be liability and held as under:-

  The provision for doubtful debt cannot be considered as provision for liability, much less the ascertained liability. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there is any liability on an assessee in prasenti or in futuro when a debt is considered as had or doubtful. There is no obligation on an assessee to pay any sum to anybody in such cases. The only consequence that follows in considering the debt as had or doubtful is that it will reduce or diminish the value of the asset of the assessee on account of non-recovery of the debt.

 43.5.    I.T.A.T.,Delhi Bench C in the case of Eicher Ltd. (supra) while dealing with Explanation (c) to Sec.115JA held as under:-

 Counsel for the assessee raised a plea that this is not a provision for meeting a liability at all. No. doubt, this plea was not taken before the CIT(A), but having regard to the nature of the plea, which is purely a legal plea requiring no investigation into facts, he is permitted to raise the same. A provision for bad and doubtful debts is made with the view to guarding against the non-recovery of certain debts which are considered by the company as bad and doubtful. It implies that monies receivable by the company may not be realized. Explanation (c) refers to amount set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities. By making the provision for bad and doubtful debts, the assessee is not guarding against any liability which it may be called upon to pay. For instance, a provision made for gratuity payable to the employees may properly be called a provision made for meeting a liability. But, when a provision is made to guard against the possible non-recovery of amounts due to the assessee, it cannot be described as provision made for meeting a liability. The ICAI, in its guidance note on Terms used in Financial Statements had defined a liability as the financial obligation of an enterprise other than owners funds. Therefore, on this ground also, the decision of the CIT(A) requires to be upheld.

 43.6.    The I.T.A.T., Kolkata Bench in the assessees own case for the assessment year under consideration, i.e. 1997-98, while disposing of the assessees appeal against the addition of Rs.1.56 crores made by the A.O. by way of prima facie adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a) in I.T.A. No.683 (Cal)/1999 held as under:-

 6.5.     On perusal of clauses (a) to (f) of explanation to section 115JA (2) of the Act, we find that the only relevant clause for the purpose of provision for doubtful debts of Rs.1,56,00,000/-made by the assessee can be clause (c) but this clause is only for those provisions with respect to liabilities and that too unascertained liabilities. The said clause does not cover provision made for diminution in value of assets. Therefore, we agree with the Ld. A.R. of the assessee that the provision of Rs.1,56,00,000/- could hot be added back to the net profit as per the P&L Account by invoking the provision of clause (c) of the explanation appended to section 115JA (2) of the Act.

 Thus, I.T.A.T., Kolkata Bench has come to the conclusion that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not for liability but for diminution in the value of assets and, therefore, not covered by clause of the Explanation to Sec. 115JA.

 43.7.    After consideration the entire legal position, arguments of both the sides and the various case laws referred to before us, we agree with the view taken by the I.T.A.T. Pune Bench in the case of J.G.Vaccum Flasks (supra), I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Eicher Ltd. (supra) and the I.T.A.T., Kollata Bench in the assessees own case. At the post of repetition, we reiterate that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not a provision for liability but it is a provision for diminution in the value of the assets. Once the provision is not for any liability, the question whether the liability is ascertained or unascertained does not arise. We, therefore, hold that clause (c) of the Explanation to Sec. 115JA would not be applicable in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts.

 44.       Now we come to the alternate argument of the Ld. D.R. that the provision for bad and doubtful debt would be covered by clause (b) of the Explanation to Sec. 115JA which reads- the amounts carried to any reserves by whatever name called.

 44.1.    The Ld. D.R. has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of  CIT vs.-Jyoti Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 388, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as under :-

  The a clear finding of fact was reached by the Tribunal that the bad debt reserve was created by the assessee-company out of the profit and loss account without reference to the outstanding sundry debtors and was not created with a view to meeting any anticipated liability. It was also not the Revenues case that the amount set apart for bad and doubtful debts reserve was less than or equal to the amount necessary to be provided for meeting an ascertained liability. On the other hand, the amount appeared to be more than what was reasonably necessary to be provided for, in respect of the bad and doubtful debts as the amount of bad and doubtful debts itself was not an ascertained amount. The provision of Rs.85,00/- for doubtful debts had to be treated as a reserve which could be legitimately included in computing the capital base of the assessee. 

 44.2.    The Ld. D.R. has further relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of Patiala vs.- CIT reported in 219 ITR 706, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as under-

"The distinction between a provision and a reserve is, in commercial accountancy fairly well-known. Provisions made against anticipated losses and contingencies are charges against profits and, therefore, to be taken into account against gross receipt in the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet. On the other hand, reserves are appropriations of profits, the assets by which they are represented being retained to from part the capital employed in the business. Provisions are usually shown in the balance-sheet by way of deductions from the assets in respect of which they are made whereas general reserves and reserve funds are shown as part of the proprietors interest. As amount set aside out of profit and other surpluses, not designed to meet a liability, contingency, commitment or diminution in the value of assets known to exist at the date of the balance-sheet is a reserve, but an amount set aside out of profits and other surpluses to provide for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy is a provision.

It was further held that-

accordingly, on the facts, that substantial amounts were set apart by the assessee, a banking company, as reserve. No amount of bad debt was actually written off or adjusted against the amount claimed as reserve. No claim for any deduction by way of bad debts were made during the relevant assessment years. The assessee never appropriated any amount against any bad and doubtful debts. The assessee amounts throughout remained in the account of the assessee by way of capital and the assessee treated the said amount as reserves and not as provisions designed to meet any liability, contingency, commitment or diminution in the value of assets known to exist at the relevant dates of the balance-sheets. The facts had been found by the Tribunal. Hence, the amounts set apart towards bad and doubtful debts in these cases were reserves qualifying for appropriate relief under rule 1(xi)(b) of the First Schedule and rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Act.

44.3.    The learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Poddar, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of Honble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Eyre Smelting Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Jugantar P.Ltd. (supra) in support of his contention that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is made for anticipatory contingencies to meet the diminution in the value of assets from unrealized debts and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as reserve for the purpose of computing the capital under the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964. He has also relied upon the decision of

Honble Apex Court

in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein the

Honble Apex Court

has considered the meaning of words provision and reserves for the purpose of Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. However, in the cases under consideration before us we are concerned with the meaning of the word reserve for the purpose of Sec. 115JA of the I.T. Act. As per Sec. 115JA, accounts are to be prepared as per Part-II & III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act. Part-III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act defined the words provision and reserve.

As per clause-7(1)(b) of Part-III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act, the expression reserves means as under :-

the expression reserve shall not, subject as aforesaid, include any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability.

From the above it is seen that the expression reserve has been defined in a negative manner and it only says that the reserve shall not include any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals, diminution in the value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability. However, sub-clause (2) of clause-7 of Part-III of Schedule-VI to the companies Act provides as under :-

(2)      Where

(a)        any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets, not being an amount written off in relation to fixed assets before the commencement of this Act; or

(b)        any amount retained by way of providing for any known liability;

is in excess of the amount which in the opinion of the directors is reasonably necessary for the purpose, the excess shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as a reserve and not as a provision.

Thus, if the provisions made by the assessee for depreciation, renewals and diminution in the value of the assets are for any known liability, if it is in excess of the amount which is reasonably necessary for the purpose for which the provision is made, the excess shall be treated as a reserve and not a provision. It would depend upon the facts of each case whether the provision made is in excess of the necessary requirement for the purpose for which the provision is made. The Honble jurisdictional High Court after considering the facts in the case of Jugantar P. Ltd. (supra) held the provision for bad & doubtful debts to be not in excess of the requirement and, therefore, held not to be reserve. In the case of Jyoti Ltd. (supra) and State Bank of Patiala (supra), after considering the facts of those cases, the

Honble Apex Court

held the provision made for bad and doubtful debts in those cases to be reserve. Therefore, whether the amount set apart by the assessee by way of provision is, in fact, provision or it is in the nature of reserve will have to be examined with reference to peculiar facts of each case.

45.       Now reverting back to the facts in the case of Usha Martin Industries ltd. we find that in the accounts, the assessee had made the provision for bad and doubtful debts of Rs.2.20 crores as on 31.3.1997. The provision as on 31.3.1996 was Rs.64 lacks. Thus the additional provision of Rs.1.56 crores is made for the year under consideration. The balance sheet of the assessee is duly audited and certified by the Chartered Accountants and it has nowhere reported that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is excessive in the opinion of either directors or auditors. We also find that the total outstanding debt as on 31.3.1997 was more than Rs.86 crores against which the provision for bad and doubtful debt was Rs.2.20 crores, which is even less than 3% of the total debt. The A.O. in the assessment order has nowhere stated that the provision made by the assessee for provision is made. At the time of hearing before us also, the Revenue expect making a claim that the provision for bad and doubtful debt should be considered as reserve under clause (b) of Explanation to Sec. 115JA, has not proved how the provision made for bad and doubtful debt is excessive or unreasonable. In view of the above, we are unable to accept the Revenues claim that the provision for bad and doubtful debt in the of the assessee, viz., Usha Martin Industries Ltd. would fall within clause (b) of the Explanation to Sec. 115JA of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the C.I.T.(A)deleting the addition of Rs.1.56 crores made by the A.O. in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debt.

46.       In the case of M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd., the A.O. has also made the addition of Rs.1,25,000/- in respect of provision for wealth-tax. The same was deleted by the C.I.T.(A). The Revenue aggrieved with the order of the C.I.T.(A) is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. We have already stated above that for the purpose of Sec. 115JA the addition to the book profit, which is computed as per Part-II & III of Schedule-VI to the Companies Act, can be made only if it is permissible by items No. (a) to (f) of the Explanation to Sec. 115JA. We find that as per clause (a) to Explanation any amount of income-tax paid or payable and the provision therefore is liable to be added to the book profit. However, there is no such provision for making the addition with regard to wealth-tax Since the provision for wealth-tax does not fall within any of the items of the Explanation to Sec. 115JA, we hold that the C.I.T.(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the A.O. in this regard. In view of the above, we reject the Revenues appeal in the case of M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd.

47.       Now we will take up the assessees appeal for A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. vide I.T.A.T.NO. 2437 (Kol)/2005. The only ground raised in this appeal by the assessee is against the addition of Rs. 92,74,305/- being the provision for bad and doubtful debt, which is added by the A.O. to the profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act and sustained by the C.I.T.(A).

47.1.    The facts of the case are that for the year under consideration, the assessee filed the return disclosing loss of Rs. 11,41,09,915/-. However, the book profit computed u/s. 115JB was disclosed at Rs. 8,08,18,867/-. The determined the book profit at Rs.11,25,21,939/- wherein he made the following additions :-

(a)        Provision for doubtful debts, loans & advances       Rs. 92,74,305/-

(b)        Provision for diminution in the value of assets         Rs. 2,10,41,506/-

The C.I.T.(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,10,41,506/- against which the Revenue is in appeal vide I.T.A.T. No. 2449 (Kol)/2005. The assessee is in appeal against the addition for provision for doubtful debts, loans and advances sustained by the C.I.T.(A). We find that the A.O. has made the addition under Explanation (c) to Sec. 115JB. The C.I.T.(A) has upheld the finding of the A.O. following the decision of Honble Madras High Court in the case of Beardsell Ltd. (supra). However, he has alternatively upheld the addition under clause (b) of Explanation to Sec. 115JB.

47.2.    After consideration the arguments of the parties in the case of Uaha Martin Industries Ltd., we have already held that the provision for bad and doubtful debt does not fall within the ambit of item (c) of the Explanation to Sec. 115JA. Items under Explanation in Esc. 115JA and in Sec. 115JB are identical. Therefore, our finding given with regard to item (c) of the Explanation to Sec. 115JA would be squarely applicable to the case of the assessee, i.e. M/s. Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. Accordingly, we held that the addition for bad and doubtful debt cannot be made to the book profit under item (c) of the Explanation to Sec. 115JB.

47.3.    Coming to item (b) of the Explanation while adjudicating the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd. we have held that it would depend upon the facts of each case whether the provision made is in excess of the purpose for which the provision is made. Coming to the facts of the assessees case, we find that the A.O. has nowhere pointed out that the provision made by the assessee is excess or unreasonable. Moreover, from the assessees paper book pages 32 to 44, we find that the assessee has given the detailed explanation before the A.O. with regard to provision for bad and doubtful debt. At page-36 three are details of the provision for bad and doubtful debt. From pages-37 to 44, the assessee has given the explanation with regard to each and every debtor why the recovery from them is considered as doubtful. The Revenue has not doubted the correctness of the above detailed submission made before the A.O. In view of the above, we are unable to accept the Revenues submission that the provision made for bad and doubtful debt is excessive or unreasonable for the purpose for which the provision is made. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 92,74,305/- to the book profit made by the A.O. and sustained by the C.I.T.(A) is deleted.

48.       In the Revenues appeal in ITA No. 2449 (Kol)/2005, the only ground which is permitted by the COD to be proceeded with is against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,10,41,506/- made by the A.O. on account of diminution in the value of investment of the assessee-company.

48.1.    We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. The A.O. has made the addition under Explanation (c) to Sec. 115JB. For the detailed discussions earlier in this order, we hold that for diminution in the value of the assets, Explanation (c) to Sec. 115JB would not be applicable. Coming to explanation (b) to Sec. 115JB, we find that the assessee has given the detailed note before the A.O. explanation the diminution in the value of investment amounting to Rs. 210.42 lacs. It has nowhere pointed out by the Revenue that the above explanation of the assessee is improper or incorrect. The A.O. has also not given any finding that the provision made by the assessee for diminution in the value of investment is unreasonable or incorrect. At the time of hearing before us also, the Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to prove that the provision made by the assessee for diminution in the value of investment is unreasonable or excessive. Accordingly, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the C.I.T.(A) in this regard. The same is sustained and the Revenues appeal is rejected.

49.       Now we come to Revenues appeals in the case of Indian Container Leasing Co. Ltd. for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The common ground raised in both these appeals reads as under :-

that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred to delete the provision for liability in the computation of booked profit u/s. 115JA.

49.1.    The facts of the case are that for both the years the A.O. computed the total income of the assessee u/s. 115JA of the I.T. Act in which he made the addition for provision for bad and doubtful debt. In assessment year 1997-98, he made the addition of Rs. 64,31,000/- while in assessment year 1998-99, the addition made was of Rs. 50,35,889/-. The additions were made under Explanation (c) of  Sec. 115JA. On appeal, the C.I.T.(A) deleted the addition in both the years. Hence these appeals by the Revenue.

49.2.    We have  considered the rival submissions and for the detailed discussions made hereinabove in this order, we hold that clause (c) of explanation to Sec. 115JA is not applicable in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debt. Now we come to the alternate contention of the Revenue that the addition made by the A.O. should be sustained under Explanation (b) to Sec. 115JA. We find that with regard to provision for bad and doubtful debt, the assessee has furnished the complete details before the A.O. At pages 28 to 30 of the assessees paper book, there is a party-wise detail whose debt is considered as doubtful. In these details, the assessee has also given the position in the subsequent year and has pointed out that even subsequently the debt could not be recovered but ultimately it was written off. The A.O. has not pointed out that the above particulars given by the assessee are incorrect. In fact, the A.O. has nowhere stated that the provision made by the assessee is unreasonable or excessive. During the course of hearing before us also, the Revenue has not brought on record any evidence in support of its claim that the provision is either unreasonable or excessive. In view of the above, we are unable to accept the Revenues contention that the addition is required to be sustained under Explanation (b) to Sec. 115JA of the I.T. Act. We , therefore, uphold the order of the C.I.T.(A).

50.       In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in the cases of respective assessee are dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee, Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., is allowed.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions ERP Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions ERP Software Solutions Supply Chain Management Solutions SCM Solutions Supply Chain Management Software Solutions SCM Software Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions India ERP Solutions India Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions India ERP Software Solutions India Supply Chain Management Solutions India SCM Solutions India Supply Chain Management Software Solutions India SCM Software Solutions India

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions