Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.9 The learned senior Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submits that the amount in doubtful debt is not ascertained and onus lies on the assessee. He cites the following decisions :

1. Dy. CIT v. Beardsell Ltd. (2000) 244 ITR 256 (Mad)
2. CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bom) 5.10 The learned authorised representative rejoins with the submission that specific date was there, it is not an ad hoc provision and the assessee had option to write off or to make provision. He submits that the provisions of Section 115J of the Act should be construed strictly.
1. CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. (supra)
2. Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) 5.13 The learned senior Departmental Representative banks upon the assessment order in this regard. 5.14 After considering the arguments advanced by the parties in view of the material available on record and after having gone through the order impugned as well as the decisions relied upon by them, we find substance in the submission of the learned authorised representative that the provision for gratuity was determined by the assessee on the basis of actual valuation which is an ascertained liability. We, accordingly, allow the ground in favour of the assessee with the direction to the AO to allow the claim of the assessee deleting the addition made on account of provision for gratuity. 5.15 Ground Nos. (iv) and (v) are general in nature which need no separate adjudication. 5.16 In the result, the appeal is allowed.