REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3286-3287 OF 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.21568-21569 of 2009)
M/s. Vijaya Bank ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondent(s)
J U D G E M E N T
S.H. KAPADIA,J.
Leave granted.
Whether it is imperative for the assessee-Bank to
close the individual account of each of it's debtors in it's
books or a mere reduction in the Loans and Advances or
Debtors on the asset side of it's Balance Sheet to the extent
of the provision for bad debt would be sufficient to
constitute a write off is the question which we are required
to answer in these civil appeals?
In these civil appeals, we are concerned with
Assessment Years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. For the Assessment
Year 1994-1995, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of
Rs.7,10,47,161/- which the assessee-Bank had reduced from
Loans and Advances or Debtors on the ground that the impugned
...2/-
- 2 -
bad debt had not been written off in an appropriate manner as
required under the Accounting principles. According to him,
the impugned bad debt supposedly written off by the assessee-
Bank was a mere provision and the same could not be equated
with the actual write off of the bad debt, as per the
requirement of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
[`1961 Act', for short] read with Explanation thereto which
Explanation stood inserted in 1961 Act by Finance Act, 2001
with effect from 1st April, 1989. The assessee carried the
matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)
[`CIT(A)', for short], who opined that it was not necessary
for the purpose of writing off of bad debts to pass
corresponding entries in the individual account of each and
every debtor and that it would be sufficient if the debit
entries are made in the Profit and Loss Account and
corresponding credit is made in the “Bad Debt Reserve
Account”. Against the decision of CIT (A) on this point, the
Department preferred an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal [`Tribunal', for short]. Before the Tribunal, it
was argued on behalf of the Department that write off of each
and every individual account under the Head `Loans and
Advances' or Debtors was a condition precedent for claiming
deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. According to
the Department, the claim of actual write off of bad debts in
relation to Banks stood on a footing different from the
accounts of the Non-Banking assessee(s), though it was not
disputed before us that Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act covers
Banking as well as Non-Banking assessees. According to the
...3/-
- 3 -
assessee, once a provision stood created and, ultimately,
carried to the Balance Sheet wherein Loans and Advances or
Debtors depicted stood reduced by the amount of such
provision, then, there was actual write off because, in the
final analysis, at the year-end, the so-called provision does
not remain and the Balance Sheet at the year-end only carries
the amount of loans and advances or debtors, net of such
provision made by the assessee for the impugned bad debt.
The Tribunal, accordingly, upheld the above contention of the
assessee on three grounds. Firstly, according to the
Tribunal, the assessee had rightly made a provision for bad
and doubtful debt by debiting the amount of bad debt to the
Profit and Loss Account so as to reduce the profits of the
year. Secondly, the provision account so created was debited
and simultaneously the amount of loans and advances or
debtors stood reduced and, consequently, the provision
account stood obliterated. Lastly, according to the
Tribunal, loans and advances or the sundry debtors of the
assessee as at the end of the year lying in the Balance Sheet
was shown as net of “provisions for doubtful debt” created by
way of debit to the Profit and Loss Account of the year.
Consequently, the Tribunal, on this point, came to the
conclusion that deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961
Act was allowable.
On the question whether it was imperative for the
assessee to close each and every individual account and it's
debtors in it's Books or a mere reduction in the loans and
advances to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful
...4/-
- 4 -
debt was sufficient, the answer given by the Tribunal was
that, in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in
the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, reported in [1981] 130
ITR 95 (Gujarat), the CIT(A) was right in coming to the
conclusion that, since the assessee had written off the
impugned bad debt in it's Books by way of a debit to the
Profit and Loss Account simultaneously reducing the
corresponding amount from Loans and Advances or Debtors
depicted on the asset side in the Balance Sheet at the close
of the year, the assessee was entitled to deduction under
Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. This view was not accepted
by the High Court which came to the conclusion by placing
reliance on a relied upon judgement in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. vs. M/s. Wipro Infotech
Limited [See Page 5 of the Paper Book], that, in view of the
insertion of the Explanation vide Finance Act, 2001, with
effect from 1st April, 1989, the decision of the Gujarat High
Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala
[supra] no more held the field and, consequently, mere
creation of a provision did not amount to actual write off of
bad debts, hence, these civil appeals.
At the outset, we may state that, in these civil
appeals, broadly, two questions arise for determination. The
first question which arises for determination concerns the
manner in which actual write off takes place under the
Accounting principles. The second question which arises for
...5/-
- 5 -
determination in these civil appeals is, whether it is
imperative for the assessee-Bank to close the individual
account of each debtor in it's Books or a mere reduction in
the “Loans and Advances Account” or Debtors to the extent of
the provision for bad and doubtful debt is sufficient?
The first question is no more res integra. Recently,
a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Southern
Technologies Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
reported in [2010] 320 ITR 577, [in which one of us [S.H.
Kapadia,J.] was a party] had an occasion to deal with the
first question and it has been answered, accordingly, in
favour of the assessee vide Paragraph (25), which reads as
under:
“Prior to April 1, 1989, the law, as it then
stood, took the view that even in cases in which
the assessee(s) makes only a provision in its
accounts for bad debts and interest thereon and
even though the amount is not actually written
off by debiting the profit and loss account of
the assessee and crediting the amount to the
account of the debtor, the assessee was still
entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii).
[See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR
537 (Bom) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala
vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj)] Such state of
law prevailed up to and including the assessment
year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with
effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation
in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified
that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable
in the account of the assessee will not include
any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in
the accounts of the assessee. The said
amendment indicates that before April 1, 1989,
even a provision could be treated as a write
off. However, after April 1, 1989, a distinct
dichotomy is brought in by way of the said
...6/-
- 6 -
Explanation to section 36(1)(vii).
Consequently, after April 1, 1989, a mere
provision for bad debt would not be entitled to
deduction under Section 36(1)(vii). To
understand the above dichotomy, one must
understand `how to write off'. If an assessee
debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit
and loss account and credits the asset account
like sundry debtor’s account, it would
constitute a write off of an actual debt.
However, if an assessee debits `provision for
doubtful debt' to the profit and loss account
and makes a corresponding credit to the `current
liabilities and provisions' on the liabilities
side of the balance-sheet, then it would
constitute a provision for doubtful debt. In
the latter case, the assessee would not be
entitled to deduction after April 1, 1989.”
One point needs to be clarified. According to Shri
Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the Department, the view expressed by the
Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai
Bardanwala [supra] was prior to the insertion of the
Explanation vide Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 1st
April, 1989, hence, that law is no more a good law.
According to the learned counsel, in view of the insertion of
the said Explanation in Section 36(1)(vii) with effect from
1st April, 1989, a mere debit of the impugned amount of bad
debt to the Profit and Loss Account would not amount to
actual write off. According to him, the Explanation makes it
very clear that there is a dichotomy between actual write off
on the one hand and a provision for bad and doubtful debt on
the other. He submitted that a mere debit to the Profit and
...7/-
- 7 -
Loss Account would constitute a provision for bad and
doubtful debt, it would not constitute actual write off and
that was the very reason why the Explanation stood inserted.
According to him, prior to Finance Act, 2001, many assessees
used to take the benefit of deduction under Section
36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act by merely debiting the impugned bad
debt to the Profit and Loss Account and, therefore, the
Parliament stepped in by way of Explanation to say that mere
reduction of profits by debiting the amount to the Profit and
Loss Account per se would not constitute actual write off.
To this extent, we agree with the contentions of Shri
Bhattacharya. However, as stated by the Tribunal, in the
present case, besides debiting the Profit and Loss Account
and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debt, the
assessee-Bank had correspondingly/simultaneously obliterated
the said provision from it's accounts by reducing the
corresponding amount from Loans and Advances/debtors on the
asset side of the Balance Sheet and, consequently, at the end
of the year, the figure in the loans and advances or the
debtors on the asset side of the Balance Sheet was shown as
net of the provision “for impugned bad debt”. In the
judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas
H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala [supra], a mere debit to the Profit
and Loss Account was sufficient to constitute actual write
off whereas, after the Explanation, the assessee(s) is now
required not only to debit the Profit and Loss Account but
simultaneously also reduce loans and advances or the debtors
from the asset side of the Balance Sheet to the extent of the
....8/-
- 8 -
corresponding amount so that, at the end of the year, the
amount of loans and advances/debtors is shown as net of
provisions for impugned bad debt. This aspect is lost sight
of by the High Court in it's impugned judgement. In the
circumstances, we hold, on the first question, that the
assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under
Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write
off by the assessee in it's Books, as indicated above.
Coming to the second question, we may reiterate that
it is not in dispute that Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act
applies both to Banking and Non-Banking businesses. The
manner in which the write off is to be carried out has been
explained hereinabove. It is important to note that the
assessee-Bank has not only been debiting the Profit and Loss
Account to the extent of the impugned bad debt, it is
simultaneously reducing the amount of loans and advances or
the debtors at the year-end, as stated hereinabove. In other
words, the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the
year-end in the balance-sheet is shown as net of the
provisions for impugned debt. However, what is being
insisted upon by the Assessing Officer is that mere reduction
of the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the
year-end would not suffice and, in the interest of
transparency, it would be desirable for the assessee-Bank to
close each and every individual account of loans and advances
or debtors as a pre-condition for claiming deduction under
Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. This view has been taken by
....9/-
- 9 -
the Assessing Officer because the Assessing Officer
apprehended that the assessee-Bank might be taking the
benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act,
twice over. [See Order of CIT (A) at Pages 66, 67 and 72 of
the Paper Book, which refers to the apprehensions of the
Assessing Officer]. In this context, it may be noted that
there is no finding of the Assessing Officer that the
assessee had unauthorisedly claimed the benefit of deduction
under Section 36(1)(vii), twice over. The Order of the
Assessing Officer is based on an apprehension that, if the
assessee fails to close each and every individual account of
it's debtor, it may result in assessee claiming deduction
twice over. In this case, we are concerned with the
interpretation of Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. We cannot
decide the matter on the basis of apprehensions/desirability.
It is always open to the Assessing Officer to call for
details of individual debtor's account if the Assessing
Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that assessee has
claimed deduction, twice over. In fact, that exercise has
been undertaken in subsequent years. There is also a flipside
to the argument of the Department. Assessee has
instituted recovery suits in Courts against it's debtors. If
individual accounts are to be closed, then the
Debtor/Defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the
Bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable
in which event the suit would be dismissed.
Before concluding, we may refer to an argument
advanced on behalf of the Department. According to the
Department, it is necessary to square off each individual
...10/-
- 10 -
account failing which there is likelihood of escapement of
income from assessment. According to the Department, in
cases where a borrower's account is written off by debiting
Profit and Loss Account and by crediting Loans and Advances
or Debtors Accounts on the asset side of the Balance Sheet,
then, as and when in the subsequent years if the borrower
repays the loan, the assessee will credit the repaid amount
to the Loans and Advances Account and not to the Profit and
Loss Account which would result in escapement of income from
assessment. On the other hand, if bad debt is written off by
closing the borrower's account individually, then the repaid
amount in subsequent years will be credited to the Profit and
Loss Account on which the assessee-Bank has to pay tax.
Although, prima facie, this argument of the Department
appears to be valid, on a deeper consideration, it is not so
for three reasons. Firstly, the Head Office Accounts clearly
indicate, in the present case, that, on repayment in
subsequent years, the amounts are duly offered for tax.
Secondly, one has to keep in mind that, under the Accounting
practice, the Accounts of the Rural Branches have to tally
with the Accounts of the Head Office. If the repaid amount in
subsequent years is not credited to the Profit and Loss
Account of the Head Office, which is ultimately what matters,
then, there would be a mis-match between the Rural Branch
Accounts and the Head Office Accounts. Lastly, in any event,
Section 41(4) of 1961 Act, inter alia, lays down that, where
a deduction has been allowed in respect of a bad debt
...11/-
- 11 -
or a part thereof under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act, then,
if the amount subsequently recovered on any such debt is
greater than the difference between the debt and the amount
so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits and
gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income tax
as the income of the previous year in which it is recovered.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Assessing
Officer is sufficiently empowered to tax such subsequent
repayments under Section 41(4) of 1961 Act and, consequently,
there is no merit in the contention that, if the assessee
succeeds, then it would result in escapement of income from
assessment.
For the afore-stated reason, we uphold the judgement
of the Tribunal dated 31st July, 2003, and set aside the
impugned judgement of the High Court. Consequently, the
assessee's appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs.
......................J.
[S.H. KAPADIA]
......................J.
[SWATANTER KUMAR]
New Delhi,
April 15, 2010.
