Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Is amount disallowed u/s 41(1) if the assessee has not reconciled and adjusted the receivables?

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Bangalore

Brief :
The above appeal was disposed of by the ITAT vide its order dated 31.01.2018. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Petition in MA No.263/Bang/2018 for the limited purpose of non-adjudication of ground Nos. 4 and 5 by the ITAT in its order dated 31.01.2018.

Citation :
ITA No.1223

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE
Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM
ITA No.1223/Bang/2017: Asst.Year 2012-2013

The Dy.Commissioner of Incometax,
Circle 4(1)(1)
Bangalore

vs

M/s.Karnataka Agro
Industries Corporation Ltd.
#24, Bellary Road, Hebbal
Bangalore – 560 024.
PAN : AABCK2579C.Appellant by : Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Respondent by : Sri.K.Y.Ningoji Rao, CA
Date of Hearing : 01.09.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2021

O R D E R

1. An amount of Rs.6,03,90,079 was disallowed u/s 41(1) of the I.T.Act and added to the total income by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act (order dated 13.02.2015).

2. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority it was contended that the assessee had received this advance prior to 2003 against sales / services rendered by the assessee. It was submitted that major portions have been received from the Government Departments. It was stated that these advances were outstanding due to non-adjustment of receivables on account of closure of assessee-company and the same has been adjusted to receivables after reconciliation during the subsequent assessment years. It was stated that the advances received against sales amount is `Nil’ as per Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2016.

3. Therefore, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that the liability has neither ceased to exist nor there is a remission of liability in terms of section 41(1) of the I.T.Act. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (supra) and aforesaid reasoning, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly.

4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 02nd day of September, 2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement
 

 

LinkedIn







Trending Tags