- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal though has been listed for hearing but it appears that no question of law has been formulated for admitting the appeal. However, in the memo of appeal the following question of law has been framed:- (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance of loss on foreign exchange difference amounting to Rs. 4,64,884/-, solely relying upon the observation in the annual audited account. In doing so, the Hon'ble ITAT have erred in not recognizing that the assessee has failed to furnish detailed called for by the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings. They failed to observe that there is no fretter on the powers of the Assessing Officer to require the assessee to justify the claim with reference to records, materials and evidences and that such power is inherent in the Assessing Officer in the Scheme of the Act. In doing so the Hon'ble ITAT have erred in departing from the decision from the decision laid down in the case of Good Year India Ltd. Vs. CIT (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of legal and professional charges to the extent claimed in the immediately preceding Assessment Year. By doing so, the Hon'ble ITAT have ignored the settle legal position that the doctrine of resjudicata is not applicable to the income tax proceedings. Therefore the Hon'ble ITAT have overlooked the settled legal position laid out by the Apex Court in their decision in the case of e Radhaswami Satsang Vs. CIT, 1992 193 ITR 321 and several other such decisions on the issue. (c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not a provision in respect of an unascertained liability and therefore in the computation of book profit u/s. 115JA of the I.T. Act the said provision can not be added back in term of Clause (c) of the Explanation below sub-section(2) of the said section.
(2.) We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused reason given by the Assessing Officer, C.I.T.(Appeal) as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Kolkata.
(3.) It appears that before the Assessing Officer audited accounts were produced but, according to the learned counsel for the revenue, in support of the audited accounts some vouchers were demanded by the Assessing Officer and those were not supplied. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed the loss on account of foreign exchange difference amounting to Rs. 4,64,884/- and in want of supporting documents disallowed the legal and professional charges amounting to Rs. 20,94,089/-. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to demand more document than the audited account in a case of doubt and admittedly the respondent-assessee did not produce any supporting documents for above two :-(i) loss on account of foreign exchange difference amounting to Rs. 4,64,884/- and (ii) expenditure incurred on account of professional and legal charges amounting to Rs. 20,94,089/-. It is also submitted that cogent reasons have been given by the Assessing Officer and the C.I.T(Appeals) with respect to the provision for the bad debts and that has been held to be no ascertained liability and therefore, rightly added to the book of profit for (he purpose of computing MAT under Section 115JA.;