Triton Health Care Private Limited, ... vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.1689/Mds/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that where the assessee's ground of appeal turns on material not examined by the lower authorities, and the parties agree, the appropriate course is to set aside the appellate order and remit the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examination of the assessee's evidence and after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, CHENNAI ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य एवं ी वी. दग ु ा# राव, या$यक सद य केसम%
BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1689/Mds/2014 $नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year : 2009-10
M/s Triton Health Care Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner of No.9, Dhanalakshmi Colony, v. Income Tax, Natarajan Street, Vadapalani, Company Circle - III(2), Chennai - 600 026. Chennai - 600 034.
PAN :AABCT 3051 A (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent)
अपीलाथ* क- ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T. Banusekar, CA +,यथ* क- ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
सन ु वाई क- तार ख/Date of Hearing : 18.02.2015 घोषणा क- तार ख/Date of Pronouncement: 25.02.2015
आदे श /O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the
order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai,
dated 28.03.2014 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. 2 I.T.A. No. 1689/Mds/2014
2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in trading of
pharmaceutical products. The assessee filed return of income
declaring a total income of ` 55,93,370/-. The return filed by the
assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of Income-tax Act,
1961 (in short 'the Act') and the assessment was completed under
Section 143(3) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the
A.O. observed that the assessee had written off an amount of `
13,62,187/- being bad debts during the year. The A.O. has asked
the assessee to furnish partywise breakup on the same and ledger
extract of the respective debtors in its books. The assessee filed
the same. However, the A.O. has noticed that the assessee has
written off the respective debts in the debtors ledger only to an
extent of ` 1,365/- in the case of Lakshmi Medicals and in respect of
other debtors has not reduced the debtor balances. Hence, the
A.O. has added an amount of ` 13,60,822/- being an amount of bad
debts debited to Profit & Loss account but not written off as
irrecoverable in the respective sundry debtors ledger, to the total
income of the assessee.
3. When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the
Ld. CIT(Appeals), the Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the
A.O. by observing that a sum of ` 1365/- in the case of Lakshmi 3 I.T.A. No. 1689/Mds/2014
Medicals was written off by the assessee and not in other cases.
This was pointed out by the AR during the course of hearing on
10.03.2014 and the same was accepted by him. Hence, the Ld.
CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the A.O.
4. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in
appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.counsel for the assessee has
submitted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) without considering the
submissions of the assessee, confirmed the order of the Assessing
Officer. The assessee has filed a paper-book containing - (1)
Declaration from the authorized representative; (2) Copy of balance
sheet, Profit & Loss account along with schedules for the financial
year 2008-09; (3) Copy of letter filed before CIT(A) on 19.03.2014;
(4) Copy of journal entry bearing no.798 dated 31.03.2009 and (5)
Copy of ledger extracts of parties claimed as bad debts.
5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. has submitted that the issue
has to be remitted back to the file of the A.O. for fresh examination.
6. We have heard both sides and perused the records and
gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Ld.counsel
for the assessee has accepted the proposal made by the Ld. D.R. to
remit back the issue to the file of the A.O. In view of this, we set 4 I.T.A. No. 1689/Mds/2014
aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the
matter back to the file of the A.O. to decide the issue de novo after
examining the details filed by the assessee and affording
reasonable opportunity of being heard to it.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 25th of February,
2015 at Chennai.
Sd/- sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (वी. दग ु ा# राव) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (V. Durga Rao) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या$यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai, th =दनांक/Dated, the 25 February, 2015.
Kri.
आदे श क- +$त?ल@प अAे@षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ*/Appellant 2. +,यथ*/Respondent 3. आयकर आयB ु त (अपील)/CIT(A)-III, Chennai-34 4. आयकर आयB ु त/CIT, Chennai-III, Chennai-34 5. @वभागीय +$त$न ध/DR 6. गाड# फाईल/GF.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free