The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Hyderabad v. Online Media Solutions Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-1031-34]
| Citation | 2017-LL-1031-34 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Hyderabad |
| Respondent Name | Online Media Solutions Ltd. |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 31/10/2017 |
| Assessment Year | 2005-06 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | written off • bad debt |
| Bot Summary: | 10.2017 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Hyderabad against order, dated 26.6.2015, in ITA.No. 1318/Hyd/2011 on the file the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches A , Hyderabad. One of the aspects on which the respondent-assessee filed the afore-mentioned appeal before the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was that the Assessing Officer has wrongly made disallowance of an amount of Rs.1,69,89,612/- towards bad debts written off and that the appeal filed against the said order was unjustly dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax for short CIT(A). While allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee, the Tribunal observed that there is no dispute with regard to the actual write off in the Books of Accounts. The AO and CIT(A) disallowed the bad debts on the ground that the assessee did not furnish the necessary details of bad debts written off, etc. At the hearing, the only point urged by Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, is that under Clause-(i) of Sub-section-2 of Section-26 of the Income Tax Act, 1991, no such deduction shall be allowed unless such debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year or represents money lent in the ordinary course of the business of banking or money-lending which is carried on by the assessee. On a perusal of the reasons given by the AO and CIT(A), we find that the afore-mentioned ground raised by the learned Senior Standing Counsel has not been made the basis for disallowance of the bad debts. A ground which was neither raised nor urged before the Tribunal cannot be raised for the first time before this Court in an appeal filed under Section-260-A of the Act. |