IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 6188/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Elcome Technologies Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, CC-15(1),, 6, Ground Floor, Raheja Arcade, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Plot No. 61, Sector 11 CBD Belapur, Vs. Mumbai-400020.

Konkan Bhawan, Thane-400016.

PAN: AAACE7023Q Assessee) : Revenue)

Assessee by : Shri Viksit Bhargava a/w Shri Kalpesh Unadkat, AR Revenue by : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr.-DR Date of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 11.08.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law

1. The CIT(A) erred in drawing adverse inferences and violated the principle of natural justice, i.e. the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity of being heard (including video conferencing), before passing the order.

2. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the write off for bad debts of Rs. 2,94,66,509 in respect of debt of Council for Scientific and Industrial Research ('CSIR').

a. The AO erred in alleging that the bad debt is not allowable, since CSIR was a government entity and a going concern.

b. The CIT(A) erred in concluding that the amount due from CSIR had not really become bad and ignored the settled principle that bad debt is allowable for the previous year in which the debt is written off against the debtor account.

c. The CIT(A) erred in casting a doubt, which was not even disputed by the AO, on the year of taxation of the invoices issued to CSIR. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had provided the invoice wise details of the invoices written off, which were offered to tax in the respective year in which invoice/debit note were issued.

d. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no payment was received till date from CSIR. Even otherwise, if any amount would have been received, the Appellant would have offered to tax under section 41(1) of the Act.

3. The CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to allow the write off for bad debts of Rs. 2,82,75,659 in respect of write off of debt of Alcock Ashdown (Gujarat) Limited. Further, the CIT(A) erred in exceeding his jurisdiction under section 250(4) of the Act, in directing the AO to verify the contentions and vouching documents regarding the allowance of bad debts qua Alcock Ashdown (Gujarat) Limited.

4. The CIT(A) erred in not allowing the claim of bad debts corresponding to the service tax paid on services to Mahanadi Coalfield Limited amounting to Rs. 13,72,263. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant ought to have claimed refund from the sales tax department.

5. Without prejudice to ground no. 4 above, the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the write off of service tax paid u/s 37/28 of the Act.

6. The CIT(A) erred in not allowing the claim of write off of very old advances in respect of Creaty, Three D Magic Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and other balances, aggregating to Rs. 38,55,643 and directing the AO to verify the claim of the Appellant. Further, the CIT(A) erred in exceeding his jurisdiction under section

250(4) in directing the AO to verify the documents filed before the CIT(A).

7. The AO and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no dispute on the actual write off of the balances due from the debtors in the books of account and that such action of write off of debts and the claim thereupon is legally tenable in law.

8. The AO erred in not allowing the claim for bad debts, even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) have settled the position that once the bad debts are written off in the books of account as irrecoverable, there is no req