Case Law Details
Bobcards Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
So far as the nature of provisions of card receivables is concerned, we find that Hon’ble Apex Court has succinctly carved out the fine distinction between debts payable by the assessee vis-à-vis debts receivable by the assessee in the cited case of CIT Vs. HCL Commet Systems & Services Ltd. [305 ITR 409] in the following manner: –
As stated above, the said Explanation has provided six items, i.e., Item Nos.(a) to (f) which if debited to the profit and loss account can be added back to the net profit for computing the book profit. In this case, we are concerned with Item No. (c) which refers to the provision for bad and doubtful debt. The provision for bad and doubtful debt can be added back to the net profit only if Item (c) stands attracted. Item (c) deals with amount(s) set aside as provision made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities. The assessee’s case would, therefore, fall within the ambit of Item (c) only if the amount is set aside as provision; the provision is made for meeting a liability; and the provision should be for other than ascertained liability, i.e., it should be for an unascertained liability. In other words, all the ingredients should be satisfied to attract Item (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA. In our view, Item (c) is not attracted. There are two types of “debt”. A debt payable by the assessee is different from a debt receivable by the assessee. A debt is payable by the assessee where the assessee has to pay the amount to others whereas the debt receivable by the assessee is an amount which the assessee has to receive from others. In the present case “debt” under consideration is “debt receivable” by the assessee. The provision for bad and doubtful debt, therefore, is made to cover up the probable diminution in the value of asset, i.e., debt which is an amount receivable by the assessee. Therefore, such a provision cannot be said to be a provision for liability, because even if a debt is not recoverable no liability could be fastened upon the assessee. In the present case, the debt is the amount receivable by the assessee and not any liability payable by the assessee and, therefore, any provision made towards irrecoverability of the debt cannot be said to be a provision for liability. Therefore, in our view Item (c) of the Explanation is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in adding back the provision for doubtful debts of Rs.92,15,187/- under clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the 1961 Act.
With a view to overcome the same, clause (i) was added to Explanation-1 to Section 115JB with retrospective effect from AY 2001-02 vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 which provided that the Book Profits should be increase by the amount set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset. It is undisputed fact that the assessee had filed return of income for AY 2007-08 much before the date of the said amendment and therefore, the said amendment could not be given effect to by filing revised return of income u/s 139(5) which already expired on 31/03/2009.
Proceedings further, it is also an undisputed fact that the write-back of Rs.363.37 Lacs has been made out of provisions of Rs.3449.82 Lacs made in AY 2007-08. Nothing on record controvert the aforesaid fact. We find that in AY 2007-08, the assessee had book losses of Rs.4601.10 Lacs and even after taxguru.in adding back the said provisions as envisaged by the amendment, the resultant figure would have still been a negative figure and the assessee would not have any liability to pay tax u/s 115JB. Therefore, we find substantial force in these arguments raised by Ld. AR before us.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
