Mudra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd, ... vs Department Of Income Tax

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ ''B'', अहमदाबाद ।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, "B" BENCH सव ौी ौी जी.

जी.सी.

सी.गु ा, माननीय उपा!य", उपा!य", एवं अिनल चतुवद ' (, (, लेखा सदःय के सम" ।

BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

ITA No.1234/Ahd/2011 With CO No.123/Ahd/2011 [Asstt.Year : 2007-2008]

The ACIT(OSD)-1 बनाम/Vs. Mudra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd.

Range-4, 1st Floor, Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Circle Navjivan Trust Bldg. Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. PAN : AAACG 7917 K

(अपीलाथ. / Appellant) (ू0यथ. / Respondent)

राजःव क1 ओर से/ : Revenue by Shri Roopchand, Sr.DR िनधा 4रती क1 ओर से/ : Assessee by Shri Vijay Ranjan, AR सुनवाई क1 तार(ख/ : Date of Hearing 8th January, 2015 घोषणा क1 तार(ख/ : Date of Pronouncement 02-02-2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: This appeal by the Revenue and CO of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2007-2008 are directed against the order of the CIT(A). These are being disposed of with this consolidated order.

ITA No.1234/Ahd/2011 (Revenue's Appeal) 2. The only ground of the appeal of the Revenue is as under:

ITA No.1234/Ahd/2011 with CO "1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.32,35,169/- made by the AO being sundry balances written off without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record by the AO."

3. The learned DR submitted that out of total amount of Rs.6.46 crores only amount of Rs.32.35 lakhs was not accepted by the AO for the reasons that the assessee could not prove that the sundry balance written off have in fact become bad during the relevant year. He referred to the relevant portions of the assessment order in support of the case of the Revenue. He submitted that these amounts were outstanding since the year 2003-04 as is proved by the ledger account copies of these two parties submitted by the assessee, and the onus was on the assessee to prove that the same has become irrecoverable, and hence deserves to be written off. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the debts in question have become irrecoverable and no recovery could be made till date by the assessee. He submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd., 323 ITR

397.

4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that the fact that amounts with regard to two parties of sundry balances were actually written off in the account books of the assessee, is not in dispute. The learned counsel for the assessee has stated at Bar that no recovery from these two parties could be made by the assessee till date. In these facts of the case, we are of the view that ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra) is applicable to the facts of the assessee, and accordingly, no interference

-2- ITA No.1234/Ahd/2011 with CO

in the order of the CIT(A) is called for, and the ground no.1 of the Revenue is dismissed.

CO.123/Ahd/2011 (Assessee's CO)

5. The only ground of the CO of the assessee is as under:

"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of a sum of Rs.3,48,000 for the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company by way of rent to custom staff posted at the port."

6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the expenditure was incurred by the assessee-company by way of accommodation facility provided to the Customs staff people posted at the port. He submitted that the expenditure was incurred for business consideration only, and therefore are allowable expenditure. The learned DR submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was against the public policy, and therefore specifically not allowable under the Act. We have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that providing accommodation to the Custom Department personnel could not be allowed to the assessee as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly no interference in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is called for, and the ground of the CO of the assessee is dismissed.

7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.

Sd/- Sd/- अिनल चतुव'द( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) (अिनल (जी. जी.सी. सी.गु ा/G.C. GUPTA) लेखा सदःय /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा!य" /VICE-PRESIDENT

-3-