IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- [1] INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 32 of 2008 C.I.T., UDAIPUR V/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED, UDAIPUR [2] INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 34 of 2008 C.I.T., UDAIPUR V/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED, UDAIPUR Mr. KK BISSA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. ANJAY KOTHARI, for the respondent Date of Order : 20.8.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- These two appeals arise out of by the common order passed by the Tribunal, dated 20.02.2007, and relating to the Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1991-92. The controversy involved is very short, inasmuch as the assessee was following a practice of creating a provision, on account of Bad & Doubtful Debts, by first debiting it in its Profit & Loss Account, and then adding it back while computing its total income. Thereafter, in later year some amount was received, that was shown to the credit in Profit & Loss Account, but was not offered for taxation. It is on these facts, that the Assessing Officer observed, that for the Assessment Year 1989-90, the assessee had added a sum of Rs.08.74 lacks, on account of provision for Bad & Doubtful Debts, while the sum written back is a sum of Rs.39.56 lacks, and the difference amount has been found to be liable to tax. Similar, is the position in other financial year under consideration. The learned Commissioner found, that when the amount for which provision had been made in the earlier years has already been subjected to tax, then if the amount is received in subsequent years, that amount cannot be taxed twice over. The learned Commissioner verified the factual aspects, from the accounts, and other details of the assessee, and looked into the continued account of the past years. It was also found, that the Assessing Officer had himself also accepted the correctness of the claim of the assessee, but had given the benefit only to the extent of the provision made, instead of the written back amount. As such, it was found, that the Assessing Officer was required to allow the deduction with respect to the written back amount, even if it pertained to the provision made in the earlier Assessment Years, and accordingly directed the deduction to be allowed for the complete written back amounts, in respect of the Assessment Years. The learned Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the non- taxability of the written back amount, against the provision for the relevant years, but has held, that the amount received against the provision for earlier year, should be put to tax, which has been found to be a basic fallacy, in understanding of facts, viz. the assessee was assumed to have claimed deduction at the time the provision was made. It was found, that if the assessee had claimed deduction on account of the provision in the earlier years, of-course the written back amount could be liable to tax, but then, since no direction was claimed, when the provision was made, subsequent realization from the debtors, cannot be charged to tax. In our view, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, are perfectly in accordance with law. The question suggested by the Revenue, to be arising in appeal, in our view does not arise. It is not necessary for the assessee to show, the precise identity of the amount of written back, to be a relating to any particular earlier year, in view of the fact, that when the provision is made in whatever year, no deduction of tax had been claimed for that amount. The appeals thus have no force and the same are, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Mamta/