M/S.vistas Wind Technology India Pvt. Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Taxcompany Circle – Iii (4),Chennai – 600 034

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 17.06.2013 Coram The Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANand The Honourable Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Tax Case (Appeal) No.269 of 2012 M/s.Vistas Wind Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,No.298, Old Mahabalipuram Road,SholinganallurChennai – 600 119. .... Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle – III (4),Chennai – 600 034. .... Respondent APPEAL under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 31.1.2012 made in I.T.A.No.928/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2005-06. For Appellant : Mr.K.Ravi For Respondent: Mr.T.Ravikumar, Standing Counsel for Income Tax -------- J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)The assessee seeks admission of this Tax Case (Appeal) on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in disallowing the claim of write off of Rs.1,00,92,400/- in respect of advances made to M/s.Sambhav Steel Distributors, when in fact the same was offered before the Settlement Commission for the assessment year 2004-05 and the same having been accepted by it, thus complying with the conditions laid down in Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the disallowance in respect of write off of bad debts to the tune of Rs.1,00,92,400/- merely on the ground that the income offered before the Settlement Commission for the assessment year 2004-05 gets reduced to that extent, when in fact, the claim is allowable under the provisions of law and the same cannot be denied to the assessee merely on monetary aspect involved in it?" 2. We find from the order of the Tribunal that in respect of a sum of Rs.9,05,87,044/-, relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2003-04 claimed to be relating to payment to M/s.Sambhav Steel Districtors which was found bogus, the assessee offered it as an additional income in the course of the Settlement Commission proceedings. In the background of such admission, the question of writing off of a sum of Rs.1,00,92,400/- being advance given to the said vendor did not arise. The Tribunal pointed out that no doubt the assessee offered Rs.5,95,43,410/- for the assessment year 2004-05 as bogus purchases from M/s.Sambhav Steel Distributors before the Settlement Commission and out of a sum of Rs.5,95,43,410/-, the assessee took only a sum of Rs.1,00,92,400/- represented as advances. In the context of the admission before the Settlement Commission and the subsequent stand of the assessee, the Tribunal pointed out that the case of the assessee could not be accepted. Thus the Tribunal viewed that the assessee could not be allowed to approbate and re-approbate. Thus holding the Tribunal held that the acceptance of the claim on genuine advances also got defeated. 4 CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.AND K.B.K.VASUKI,J. 3. Having regard to the above-said factual finding, we have no hesitation in rejecting this Tax Case (Appeal) at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, this Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs. sl (C.V.,J) (K.B.K.V.,J) 17.06.2013 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Bench 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company CircleIII(4). Tax Case (Appeal) No.269 of 2012