Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The Id. counsel for the assessee in support of his above argument has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) Usha Martin Limited v. JCIT reported in 81 TTJ 518 (ITAT, Cal.);

(ii) ACIT v. Eicher Ltd. reported in 101 TTJ 369 (ITAT, Del.);

(iii) Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. DCIT 76 ITD 69 (Delhi-TM);

(iv) CIT v. Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. reported in 251 ITR 15 (Bom.);

(v) ACIT v. J.G. Vacuum Flasks reported in 83 ITD 242 (ITAT, Pune).

The Id. counsel Shri Mitra has submitted that the case laws relied by the Id. Departmental Representative for the Revenue in case of Beardsell Ltd. (supra) and the decision of this Tribunal in case of ICI India Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable as though this has been dealt with under various perspectives. And at the same time they have not considered the main issue that whether the provisions for doubtful debts is a deduction from the value of assets or a liability and such issue has only been discussed by the Hon'ble Calcutta Tribunal in assessee's own case, apart from Pune Bench in case of J.G. Vacuum Flasks (supra), which is very much relevant for determination of the issue for the consideration of this Special Bench.

25.1. Mr. Poddar has also elaborately pointed out the approach of various Court on the basis of the following judgments:

(i) Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen ;

(ii) Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT ;

(iii) CIT v. Eyre Smelting Pvt. Ltd. ;

(iv) CIT v. Jugantar P. Ltd. ;

(v) CIT v. Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. ;

(vi) Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT ;

(vii) M.J. Exports Ltd. v. JCIT [2004] 88 ITD 18 (Mum.).

26. Concluding his argument, Shri Poddar has submitted that Explanation (c) to Section 115JA(2) is not applicable in case of assessee in view of Clause (7)(l(a) of Part-III of Companies Schedule, wherein the word "provision" has clearly been defined as any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets, or retained by way of providing for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy. Shri Poddar has submitted that from the above definition and interpretation as mentioned elaborately in different text books of accountancy pointed out by him, it is apparent that the provision in this case is intended to meet the anticipated diminution of the value of assets of the assessee, resulting from unrealized debts and since the contingencies were anticipated at the date of balance-sheet and the amounts set apart from this item duly existed at the date of the balance-sheet, which has to be deducted for computation of book profit under Section 115JA. Shri Poddar has thereafter referred to his paper book and submitted that the issues involved in the case of both the assessees i.e. Balmer Lawrie and Indian Containers are similar which have been referred to in this Special Bench by the Hon'ble President, which should be decided in favour of assessee taking into consideration the various decisions of Tribunal and High Courts and after due interpretation terminology as defined in various books of accountancy in this regard.

(e) The decision of this Bench in ITA No. 2189/Cal./1995 dated 18.11.2002 in case of ICI India Ltd. is squarely applicable to the present case as the same has been passed even after considering and discussing the decision of Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. by Hon'ble Mumbai High Court which has been relied heavily by the ld. counsels for different assessees, whereas the judgment of Usha Martin Industries Ltd. by this Tribunal was without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court;

(f) The decision of Eichar Motors relied by ld. counsel for assessees, has been passed without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court;

43.2. Reverting back to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Breadshell Ltd. (supra), we find that in the above case the Hon'ble Madras High Court considered whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt is an ascertained liability or is not an ascertained liability. It was never contended before Their Lordships that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not a liability at all but the provision is only for diminution in the value of asset. Therefore. Their Lordships had no occasion to deal with this vital aspect, i.e. whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt is a provision of the diminution of the value of the asset or a provision of known liability. Similarly, I.T.A.T., Kolkata Bench in the case of ICI India Ltd. (supra) also proceeded with the presumption that the provision made for bad and doubtful debt was a provision for liability and, therefore, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Breadshell Ltd. (supra) confirmed the addition in this regard. The learned Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (supra). However, we find that in the above case also the question whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt is diminution in the value of the asset or a provision for liability was neither argued nor considered. The Hon'ble High Court deleted the addition because they agreed with the assessee's contention that the provision was for ascertained liability. Therefore, the above case would also not be applicable while considering whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt is at all a provision for liability.