Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

44. In our view, the sanctity of the Third Member decision and the Special Bench decision is of the same nature as viewed by the Delhi High Court in the case of P.C. Puri (supra). Even on this issue there is no binding precedent of the Jurisdictional High Court, it may be stated.

45. Yet another important factor, which has bothered our mind is the facts in the case of Oman International Bank. In this case, the facts show that the assessee chose to write off a bad debt of Rs. 4,59,60,393 in terms of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 92,96,000 representing debts written off in respect of amounts due from Mysore Timber Mart of Rs. 81,44,000 and Overseas Commercial (P.) Ltd. of Rs. 11,52,000, Insofar as debt due from Mysore Timber Mart is concerned the assessee-bank had sanctioned credit facility in February 1990 and to secure itself had also obtained a hypothecation of certain current assets. In order to enforce the recovery, the assessee-bank had sold timber logs, which were hypothecated with itself, and adjusted the sale proceeds against the amount due to it. The debt thereafter remaining outstanding was written off in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1994-95 as a bad debt. At the same time, the assessee-bank filed a suit for the recovery of the same. Similarly, the assessee-bank had sanctioned temporary overdraft to Overseas Commercial (P.) Ltd. in April 1991, which remained unpaid in spite of continuous follow-up action. The bank has not obtained any sort of security in respect of the overdraft facility extended in the course of its banking business. The assessee-bank written it off in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. It must be appreciated that these amounts were written off in the books of account after due approval of the competent officials of the assessee-bank. All these indicate the bona fide decision on the part of the bank to treat the amounts as irrecoverable. In fact, the records show that the assessee was not able to recover anything out of the disputed amounts till the appeal was decided by the CIT(A). It is not the case of the department that the assessee had recovered any money out of these disputed amounts despite the write off in the year 1994. The bona fides of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case can never be questioned without bringing any material to show that the write off was mala fide with an intention to have tax advantage. The Assessing Officer made no attempts in these directions. The requirement on the part of the assessee to prove that the debt has really become bad will only annex an obligation which is not spelt out in the so-called clear provisions of the amendment brought out with effect from 1-4-1989. The accounts of the assessee are subject to audit which means that the board, general body of shareholders and the statutory auditors have confirmed that the decision to write off is bona fide charge on the profit and loss account. There is no qualification in the auditors report to say that the write off was not a business consideration, which only strengthened that what has been written off to the profit and loss account is a bad debt and can be duly established so with all the attended circumstances. Asking for any demonstrative evidence or proof will only seem to be doing violence to the provisions contained in the Act and wanting the assessee to do the same act, which were specifically omitted to be clone by the Amending Act.