Case: Commr.Of Income Tax-Iv,Delhi Vs. M/S Hcl Comnet Systems &amp; Services Ld

Assessee-company was engaged in trading in data communication equipment and satellite communication services. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs.92,15,187/- on account of bad debts to the `profit and loss account. However, on the ground that it was a provision for bad and doubtful debts, the AO added the aforestated amount to the book profits as per Explanation (c) to Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("1961 Act", forappeal, the CIT (A) allowed the assessees appeal. That decision of CIT (A) stood affirmed by the Tribunal and also by the High Court vide its impugned judgment dated 18.5.07 in ITA No.56 of

Court's reasoning:
it is evident that the AO has to accept the authenticity of the accounts maintained in accordance with the provisions of Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, which are certified by the Auditors and pressed by the company in the general meeting. The AO has only the power of examining whether the books of accounts are duly certified by the authorities under the Companies Act and whether such books have been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act. The AO does not have the jurisdiction to go beyond the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation. Thereafter, the AO has to make adjustment permissible under the Explanation given in Section 115JA of the 1961 Act. It may be noted, that the adjustments required to be made to the net profit disclosed in the profit and loss account for the purposes of Section 349 of the Companies Act are quite different from the adjustment required to be made under the Explanation to Section 115JA of the 1961 Act. For the purposes of Section 115JA, the AO can increase the net profit determined as per the profit and loss account prepared as per Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act only to the extent permissible under the Explanation thereto. As stated above, the said Explanation has provided six items, i.e., Item Nos.(a) to (f) which if debited to the profit and loss account can be added back to the net profit for computing the book profit. In this case, we are concerned with Item No. (c) which refers to the provision for bad and doubtful debt. The provision for bad and doubtful debt can be added back to the net profit only if Item (c) stands attracted. Item (c) deals with amount(s) set aside as provision made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities. The assessees case would, therefore, fall within the ambit of Item (c) only if the amount is set aside as provision; the provision is made for meeting a liability; and the provision should be for other than ascertained liability, i.e., it should be for an unascertained liability. In other words, all the ingredients should be satisfied to attract Item (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA. In our view, Item (c) is not attracted. There are two types of "debt". A debt payable by the assessee is different from a debt receivable by the assessee. A debt is payable by the assessee where the assessee has to pay the amount to others whereas the debt receivable by the assessee is an amount which the assessee has to receive from others. In the present case "debt" under consideration is "debt receivable" by the assessee. The provision for bad and doubtful debt, therefore, is made to cover up the probable diminution in the value of asset, i.e., debt which is an amount receivable by the assessee. Therefore, such a provision cannot be said to be a provision for liability, because even if a debt is not recoverable no liability could be fastened upon the assessee. In the present case, the debt is the amount receivable by the assessee and not any liability payable by the assessee and, therefore, any provision made towards irrecoverability of the debt cannot be said to be a provision for liability. Therefore, in our view Item (c) of the Explanation is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in adding back the provision for doubtful debts of Rs.92,15,187/- under clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the 1961 Act.