Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

I.T.A No. 117 of 2001

Advocates

For the Appellant: P.L.R. Menon (Sr.), George K. George, SC for IT.
For the Respondent: M. Pathrose Mathai, Saji Varghese, Advocates.

Judges

K.S Radhakrishnan
K.T Sankaran, JJ.

Acts

S. 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
S. 260A of the Income-tax Act
S. 36(1)(vii) of the I.T Act.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The assessee is a government-owned limited company (KSIDC). For the assessment year 1993-94 the assessee filed a revised return declaring nil income and debited Rs. 27,52,651 as a provision for bad debts, made up of Rs. 47,776 due from Vanchinad Leather Ltd. and Rs. 27,04,875 due from Velton Prefab Elements Ltd.

Both debtor companies were under winding up orders or recommended for winding up: Vanchinad Leather Ltd. had been recommended for winding up by the BIFR and ordered wound up by the Kerala High Court; Velton Prefab Elements Ltd. had its assets advertised for sale by the Official Liquidator and the expected realisable amount was limited. Balance-sheet figures produced showed assets insufficient to meet secured and unsecured liabilities in both companies.

The Assessing Officer disallowed the bad-debt deduction under s. 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act on the grounds that the debts were not finally settled (final order of the Official Liquidator was not available within the relevant year), details about assets and other creditors were not furnished, and the assessee had not written off the debts by crediting the borrowers' accounts as required. The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the claim for deduction. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding sufficient material to conclude irrecoverability and allowing deduction under s. 36(1)(vii). The revenue filed the present appeal under s. 260A of the Income-tax Act challenging the Tribunal's order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the final order of the Official Liquidator did not become available within the year of account relevant for the present assessment year, the claim for deduction of the two amounts is premature?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the two amounts in question (Rs. 47,776 and Rs. 27,04,875)?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee discharged the burden of proving that the two debts in question did become actually bad in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1993-94?

Arguments of the Parties

Revenue's Arguments (Senior Counsel: P.K. Raveendranatha Menon)

The assessee failed to prove that the debts had become bad in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1993-94.
Section 36(1)(vii) permits deduction of bad debts only when they are written off as irrecoverable; the mere fact that a debt is bad does not suffice if it has not been written off in accordance with the provision.
Vanchinad Leather Ltd. had not been finally wound up and the Official Liquidator had not passed final orders in the case of Velton Prefab; therefore the claim was premature.
The assessee had not produced detailed evidence of the debtor companies' assets, technical valuation, or particulars of amounts due to other institutions; absence of such material made the claim premature.
Counsel relied on prior decisions (C.I.T. v. Khem Chand Bahadur Chand; T.S.P.L.P. Chidambaram Chettiar v. Commr. of Income-tax; Chettinad Co. (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T.) for the proposition that the assessee must establish that the debt actually became bad in the relevant accounting year and that mere book entries or perception are insufficient.

Assessee's Arguments (Senior Counsel: Pathrose Mathai)

The mere fact that winding-up proceedings had not attained finality did not preclude the assessee from claiming deduction under s. 36(1)(vii).
Winding-up proceedings can take a long time; it would be unreasonable to require creditors to keep such debts alive until final reports/orders of the liquidator arrive.
The assessee relied on available financial materials (including balance-sheets) showing that the debtor companies' assets were insufficient to meet liabilities and therefore the debts were irrecoverable.
Counsel relied on decisions (Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. C.I.T.; Dr. N.K. Brahmachari v. C.I.T.) supporting the view that irrecoverability depends on facts and the lender need not wait until legal liquidation to write off loans and claim deduction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
C.I.T. v. Khem Chand Bahadur Chand (1982) 134 ITR 65	As cited by Revenue: an assessee must establish that the debt has actually become bad; mere writing off in books is not sufficient.	The decision was relied upon by Revenue to argue against the deduction. The court records that the revenue relied on it but does not adopt it as decisive in the present facts.
T.S.P.L.P. Chidambaram Chettiar v. Commr. of Income Tax (1967) 64 ITR 181 (Madras)	As cited by Revenue: the claimant must prove not only that the debt is bad/doubtful but that it became bad/doubtful in the accounting year.	The decision was referred to by Revenue; the court notes the reliance but evaluates the present case on its own factual materials and does not accept the Revenue's contention that the principle mandates refusal here.
Chettinad Co. (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1984) 147 ITR 724 (Madras)	Referenced by Revenue in support of stricter proof requirements for bad-debt deductions.	The court records the reference but the Tribunal's factual finding and other authorities led it to uphold the deduction on the facts of this case.
Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. C.I.T. (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Gujarat)	As cited by Assessee: supports the proposition that a lender need not wait until formal liquidation to write off and claim deduction if irrecoverability is established by facts.	The decision was relied upon by the assessee; the court references similar reasoning when upholding the Tribunal's conclusion that irrecoverability can be established on facts without awaiting final liquidation.
Dr. N.K. Brahmachari v. C.I.T. (Calcutta) (reported as 104 CTR-Cal-209 in the text)	Holds that irrecoverability depends on facts and it is not necessary for the lender to wait until the debtor is actually in liquidation before writing off loans and claiming deduction.	The court cited this Calcutta High Court decision approvingly and used it to support the proposition that creditors may form a bona fide judgment of irrecoverability and claim deductions on that basis.
ITR. 145 of 1998 and ITR. 25 of 2000 (appeals involving the assessee for year 1988-89)	Prior contested positions involving the same assessee on different facts; court notes having accepted the stand of the Revenue in those appeals.	The court records that on different facts it had allowed the Revenue's stand in those appeals; this is noted to distinguish the present factual situation from those earlier outcomes.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the factual matrix and the documentary materials placed before the authorities: balance-sheets of the debtor companies showing assets far short of liabilities, recommendations/orders for winding up, and the Official Liquidator's advertisement of assets with limited expected realisable value. The court emphasised the following analytical points drawn from the opinion:

Fact-finding role of the Tribunal: the Tribunal evaluated the materials and concluded as a final fact-finding authority that the debts were irrecoverable. The court treated the Tribunal's factual conclusions as entitled to weight.
Nature of irrecoverability: the court accepted the principle articulated in Dr. N.K. Brahmachari that irrecoverability depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and that a lender need not wait for formal liquidation to conclude that a debt is irrecoverable and write it off.
Practicality of winding-up proceedings: the court observed that winding-up is a cumbersome and prolonged process involving many creditors; requiring creditors to wait for final liquidation orders before writing off bad debts would be unreasonable.
Credibility of the assessee: because the assessee is government-owned, the court considered it reasonable to expect that it acted bona fide and took appropriate steps before writing off debts. The court rejected an inference that the assessee sought to gain an unfair tax advantage.
Application of s. 36(1)(vii): the court analysed the statutory provision and rejected the strict approach taken by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner that only after formal liquidation and final orders could a deduction be claimed. The court held that, on the present facts, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the debts were irrecoverable and that deduction under s. 36(1)(vii) was allowable.

On these bases the court concluded that the Tribunal was right in law to allow the deductions for the two specified amounts and that the assessing authorities' insistence on waiting for final liquidator orders was not legally justified in the circumstances of this case.

Holding and Implications

Final Disposition: The appeal is dismissed; the questions raised are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Tribunal's order allowing deductions under s. 36(1)(vii) for Rs. 47,776 (Vanchinad Leather Ltd.) and Rs. 27,04,875 (Velton Prefab Elements Ltd.) is upheld.

Implications:

Direct effect: The assessee is entitled to claim the two bad-debt deductions for the assessment year 1993-94 as allowed by the Tribunal; the Assessing Officer's and Commissioner (Appeals)'s disallowances are overturned on these facts.
On precedent and broader law: The court relied on established authority (notably Dr. N.K. Brahmachari) for the proposition that irrecoverability is fact-dependent and that creditors need not necessarily wait for formal liquidation to write off debts. The opinion emphasises that factual demonstration of irrecoverability can justify a deduction under s. 36(1)(vii). The court also recorded that in prior appeals involving the same assessee (ITR. 145 of 1998 and 25 of 2000) it had accepted the Revenue's stand on different facts, indicating that outcomes turn on the factual matrix.
No new legal principle or sweeping precedent was announced beyond application of existing principles to the present facts; the decision upholds the Tribunal's fact-based exercise of judgment in allowing the deduction.

This summary is strictly based on the content of the provided opinion and does not add information beyond what appears in the text.

Show full summary ...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.

K.S Radhakrishnan, J.:— This appeal has been preferred under S. 260A of the Income-tax Act aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA. No. 445.Coch/96 holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction of the two amounts in question, i.e, Rs. 47,776/- being the debt due from Vanchinad Leather Ltd. and Rs. 27,04,875/- being the debt due from Velton Prefab Elements Ltd. under S. 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The following questions of law are raised for our consideration:

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the final order of the official liquidator did not become available within the year of account relevant for the present assessment year is not the claim for deduction of the two amounts premature?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for the deduction of the two amounts in question, Rs. 47,776/- being the debt due from Vanchinad Leather Ltd. and Rs. 27,04,875/- being the debt due from M/s. Velton Prefab Elements Ltd.?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case did the assessee discharge the burden of proving that the two debts in question did become actually bad in the previous year relevant to the Assessment year 1993-94 ?

2. Assessee is a limited company owned by the Government of Kerala. Return of the income for the year 1993-94 was filed on 16-12-1993 and subsequently it was revised on 18-8-1994 declaring total income as NIL. Assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 27,52,651/- towards provision for bad debt which represents Rs. 47,776/- due from Vanchinad Leather Ltd. and Rs. 27,04,875/- due from Velton Prefab Elements Ltd. Both the above mentioned companies were under orders of winding up. In the case of Vanchinad Leather Ltd. the assets were not sufficient to recover dues to the assessee after paying the secured debts and in the case of Velton Prefab Elements Ltd. the Official Liquidator had advertised sale of assets and the amount realisable is expected to be Rs. 45 lakhs which should be shared between KFC, SBT and KSIDC.

3. Assessee had debited those amounts to P & L account and claimed it as bad debt. Assessing Officer however, disallowed this claim pointing out that the assessee can make a claim for deduction only when the dues from the borrower companies are finally settled. Further assessing authority also pointed out that the nature of assets owned by the company, technical evaluation of its market value and evidence for the amounts owing to other institutions etc. were not furnished and in the absence of such details it was premature to allow the deduction. Further assessing authority pointed out that the assessee has not written off the amount as contemplated under S. 36(1)(vii) by crediting the borrower's account.

4. Assessee aggrieved by those orders took up the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Trivandrum. Commissioner of Appeals rejected the claim for deduction under S. 36(1)(vii) holding that for claiming the deduction the assessee should have established that the debt in question had become a bad debt in fact. Further it was also held by the Commissioner that the claim for deduction based on the assessee's perception of the financial position of the two debtor companies especially when final orders are yet to be passed by the liquidator for winding up of those companies cannot be sustained.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee had raised a contention that the mere fact that the winding up proceedings have not attained a finality would not mean that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under S. 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. Counsel appearing for the assessee pointed out that the winding up proceedings may continue over a long period running into decades and there is no justification for forcing an assessee to keep alive certain debts even after they have become bad till the final report/order of the Official Liquidator is received. Assessee had placed reliance on the balance sheet of M/s. Velton Prefab Elements Ltd. as on 30-6-1987 in which the details of the secured loans are stated. Balance sheet also relates to the bad debts as well. Taking note of the materials made available to the Tribunal as well as the financial position of the two debtor companies Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that there is sufficient materials to hold that the debts due to the assessee company are irrecoverable. The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to get benefit of deduction under S. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax.

6. Senior counsel appearing for the revenue Sri. P.K Raveendranatha Menon contended that the assessee had failed to prove that the dets had become bad in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1993-94. Counsel contended that S. 36(1)(vii) provides for deduction of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable. Counsel submitted that Vanchinad Leather Ltd. is yet to be wound up and in the case of other company liquidator is yet to pass final orders and therefore counsel contended that the mere fact that debt had become bad by itself would not mean that debt had been written off by the assessee. Counsel referred to clause (vii) of S. 36(1) which was in force prior to 1-4-1989 and also referred to the amendment effected with effect from 1-4-1989. Counsel referred to the decision in C.I.T v. Khem Chand Bahadur Chand, (1982) 134 ITR 65 and contended that the assessee should establish that debt has actually become bad debt and the mere writing off of debt in books is not sufficient to claim deduction. Reference was also made to the decision of the Madras High Court in T.S.P.L.P Chidambaram Chettiar v. Commr. of Income Tax, (1967) 64 ITR 181 and contended that the assessee who claims a bad or doubtful debt has to prove not merely that the debt he seeks to deduct is bad or doubtful but also that it became bad or doubtful in the accounting year. Counsel submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the debts had become bad before the accounting year was not based on any evidence or material and was also vitiated by an erroneous approach. Reference was also made to the decision of the Madras High Court in Chettinad Co. (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T, (1984) 147 ITR 724.

7. Senior counsel appearing for assessee Sri. Pathrose Mathai on the other hand, contended that Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to get deduction under S. 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act since Tribunal was convinced of the recoverability of the bad debts in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel submitted the mere fact that winding up proceedings have not attained finality would not mean that the assessee cannot claim deduction under S. 36(1)(vii) of the I.T Act. Counsel made reference to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. C.I.T, (1981) 130 I.T.R 95. Reference was also made to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Dr. N.K Brahmachari v. C.I.T, 104 CTR-Cal-209.

8. We heard counsel on either side at length. Assessee admittedly, is a Government owned company. Indisputedly large amounts are due to the assessee company from Vanchinad Leather Ltd. and Velton Prefab Elements Ltd. Vanchinad Leather Ltd. was recommended for winding up by the BIFR. The balance sheet of the company as on 31-3-1987 would show that the company has a fixed asset worth Rs. 97.81 lakhs against the loan content of Rs. 2.96 crores. The amount receivable (unsecured loan) from the company, including interest and current account balance was Rs. 55.71 lakhs, which was provided for as bad debts during the year 1987-88. KSIDC has invested equity capital amounting to Rs. 17.50 lakhs in that company. High Court of Kerala has ordered winding up of the company and the amount of investment is not realisable as the company will have no assets even for paying the secured creditors. Admittedly the amount due to the assessee was unsecured loan of Vanchinad Leathers Ltd. and Velton Prefab Elements Ltd. which was also recommended for winding up by BIFR and High Court had ordered winding up. Official Liquidator had advertised for the sale of assets and the amount realisable including the security deposit forfeited was only Rs. 45 lakhs, large amounts are due to various financial institutions from the company. Total amount due to the assessee from the company was Rs. 26,72,564/- which is also unsecured loan. During the relevant assessment year winding up proceedings were in progress. Facts would clearly show that there is no possibility of recovering the amount by the assessee company. The balance sheet of M/s. Velton Prefab Elements Ltd. as on 30-6-1987 had shown secured debt at Rs. 1,47,28,612/-, but assets was only Rs. 50,67,840/-. There is also a loss of Rs. 1,58,08,594/- reflected in the balance sheet of the company. Materials produced before the authorities would positively show that there is no possibility of recovering the amount of Rs. 27,04,875/- by the assessee. Same is the situation with regard to Vanchinad Leather Ltd.

9. The Tribunal as a final fact finding authority on the basis of the materials came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to recover the bad debts. The Calcutta High Court in Dr. N.K Brahmachari's case held that the irrecoverability of a bad debt depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not necessary for the lender to wait till the debtor company actually goes into liquidation before writing off the loan and interest thereon and claiming the deduction under S. 36(1)(vii) of the I.T Act. Winding up proceedings is a cumbersome process where claims of large number of secured and unsecured creditors have to be settled, which may take considerably long period to attain finality. Creditor companies in a given case could form a conscious judgment of its own as to whether any amount would be recoverable or not and make a provision for bad and doubtful debts. In a given case assessee could establish that there is no possibility of recovering the bad and doubtful debts depending upon the financial position of the debtor company. Assessee can make an honest judgment that the debt has become bad be written off and in fact has written off not in words, but on conduct.

10. We find it difficult to accept the stand of the assessing officer as well as the Commissioner that only if a debtor company is wound up through process of law the assessee could claim deduction for writing of bad debts from those debtor companies. We are of the view it is not necessary for the assessee to wait till debtor company actually goes into liquidation before writing off the loan and interest thereon and then to claim deduction under S. 36(1)(vii) of the I.T Act. Assessee in this case is a Government owned company and it is not unreasonable to presume that it would take all possible steps before writing off the assets as bad debt. Being a Government owned company it would not be possible to conclude that the attempt of the company would be to gain unfair advantage in claiming bad debts to reduce its tax liability. The Tribunal as a final fact finding authority came to the conclusion that the mere fact that the debtor companies were not wound up at the relevant point of time does not mean that the assessee cannot claim deduction under S. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. We are of the view that the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of the two amounts in question, i.e Rs. 47,776/- being the debt due from Vanchinad Leather Ltd., and Rs. 27,04,875/- being the debt due from M/s. Velton Prefab Elements Ltd. We have allowed the stand of the Revenue in ITR. 145 of 1998 and 25 of 2000 in the assessee's case for the year 1988-89 on different facts situation.

11. Under such circumstance appeal lacks merit and the same would stand dismissed. The questions raised are all answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.

Structured Summary of the Opinion (K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Revenue's Arguments (Senior Counsel: P.K. Raveendranatha Menon)

Assessee's Arguments (Senior Counsel: Pathrose Mathai)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.

Comments