DCIT v. AGC Network Ltd. (2020) 180 ITD 204 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 36(1)(vii) : Bad debt–Non furnishing of TDS certificate amounts to amount due–Allowable as bad debt-Cannot be disallowed on ground that it was not within time prescribed under S. 155(14) of the Act.[S. 37(1), 155(14)]

Assessee claimed the non receipt of TDS certificate as revenue expenditure. The AO held that the write off of TDS could not be allowed to the assessee. Further, he observed, non-furnishing of TDS certificate could not be treated as debt due to the assessee from the persons who had deducted tax at source. Therefore, provision of S.  36(1)(vii) could not be applied. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that that withholding of tax by the deductor amounted to debt owed by him to the deductee and in the event of non-receipt of such debt, deduction would be eligible to the assessee under S.  36(1)(vii) as the conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled. However, he held that assessee’s claim could not be allowed in view of the provisions of S.155(14), since assessee had not claimed the deduction in the computation of income filed along with the return of income. Accordingly, he disallowed assessee’s claim. On appeal the Tribunal held that, though, tax was deducted at source in earlier assessment years, however, the assessee could not get credit of such TDS amount due to non-furnishing of TDS certificate by deductors. Undisputedly, the TDS amount is nothing but a part of income accruing to the assessee. It is also a fact that the assessee has offered the gross income including TDS in the respective assessment years. Therefore, to that extent, non-allowance of TDS credit to the assessee due to non-receipt of TDS certificates amounts to loss of income. Relied on CIT v. Shreyans Industries Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 393 (Punj. & Har.)(HC). The decision of the P & H High Court in the aforesaid case with regard to write off of TDS was not a subject matter of dispute before the Supreme Court, therefore, the contention of the revenue that the decision of the P & H High Court, has been reversed by the Supreme Court, is not correct interpretation of the legal position, as the subject matter of dispute before the Supreme Court was on a different issue. In view of the aforesaid, the AO is directed to allow assessee’s claim of write off of TDS. (AY.2005-06 to 2009-10)