Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"During the construction period prior to 1990, OPGC had advanced some amount to IDCOL for supply of products/rendering of services by the subsidiary companies of IDCOL Group i.e. HIWL and IPEWL. After adjustment of advances against supplies and services, a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was lying outstanding on the said loan. In anticipation of claim for repayment of loan by OPGC, interest totaling Rs.56.16 lakhs were provided for the said loan in earlier years to the financial year 2002-03. Since then no interest was charged and there was no communication by OPGC for repayment of above loan. Considering the preliminary observation of A.G. Audit, the amount of loan along with interest provided on the above loan was unilaterally written back in the accounts of 2009-10 without any confirmation from OPGC.

During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings when it was asked that why the assessee has debited such amount from the net profit under the head "Written back OPGC Loan" thereafter, it is submitted by the assessee that:-

"During the construction period to 1990, OPGC had advanced some amount to IDCOL for supply of products/rendering of services by the subsidiary companies of IDCOL Group, i.e. HIWL and IPEWL. After adjustment of demands against supplies and services, a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was lying outstanding on the said loan. In anticipation of claim of repayment of loan by OPGC, interest totallying to Rs.56.16 lakhs were provided for the said loan in ITA No .124/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 earlier years up to the financial year 2002-03. Since then no interest was charged and there was no communication by OPGC for repayment of above loan. Considering the preliminary observation of A.G. audit the amount of loan along with interest provided on the above loan was unilaterally written back in the accounts of 2009-10 without any confirmation from OPGC.
-
"Explanation 1 - For the purpose of this sub-section, the expression 'loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of any such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof shall include the remission or cessation of any liability by a unilateral act by the first mentioned person under clause(a) or the successor in business under clause(b) of that section by way of writing off such liability in his accounts."

It is crystal clear from the above explanation that any unilateral act by the assessee is also inclusive in the purview of section 41(1) of the IT Act 1961 and is within the meaning of that section to which the assessee admitted suo motu through its explanation as above. As observed from the explanation on written submission produced during the course of remand proceedings at SI No. 1.3 it is ITA No .124/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 submitted that in the context of waiver of loan, taxability would depend upon the purpose of which the loan was taken. Also a few documents in shape of Xerox copies have been produced with the written submission filed by the appellant assessee during the course of appeal proceedings. Primafacie scrutiny of those documents it appears to be those relates to transaction of loan by the party with IB Thermal Power Station, OPGC during the period 1999, 2000 to 2004. The explanation offered by the assessee in the rejoinder do not describe the details as claimed by it in the enclosures annexed with the rejoinder. The details of contents brought by the assessee in the post assessment proceedings are not verifiable in the light of the submission made by the assessee in the rejoinder. Also the documents appear to be older than for a period of 10-12 years ago. This is an additional evidence adduced by the assessee u/s.46A of IT Act, Assessee could not substantiate its claim through out the assessment proceedings and remand proceedings for exemption of its claim that such write off of loan amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- is capital in nature or a term loan taken for acquisition of a capital asset, rather from its explanation produced during the course of assessment proceedings it was stated that 'during the construction period prior to 1990, OPGC had advanced some amount to IDCOL for supply of products/rendering of service. Hence, the issues raised by the assessee during remand appeal proceedings is an afterthought only for which the addition made by the AO is liable to sustained without granting any relief on this issue.""

8. Contra, ld A.R. of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and the materials.

9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. The sole dispute raised by the revenue is with respect to written off of loan from OPGC. The contention of ld D.R. is that the CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition. Ld A.R. submitted a certificate of adjustment of loan dated 24.2.2000 and also supported with the financial statement and annual report for the financial year ending 31.3.1995, where the assessee has disclosed the loan from OPG of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in the said financial year. The findings of the CIT(A) indicate that the amount written-off (written back by the assessee in its accounts) represents a part of the loan from OPGC which was taken long back, we find that the facts are not controverted by ld D.R and also the revenue not place cogent material on record to suggest that the deduction or allowance in respect of this amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was allowed to the assessee in any earlier assessment year or year. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and ld CIT(A) has dealt on the issue and after ITA No .124/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 enquiring the materials available on record vis-à-vis explanation of the assessee, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CI(A) and uphold the same.