2010 (4) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld that no interference with the Tribunal’s order is called for and, in any event, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. – Decision in favor of assessee – against the revenue
Mr. Badar Durrez Ahmed and Mr. V.K. Jai, JJ. For the Appellant: Ms. Sonia Mathur with Mr. Sumit Kr. Singh, Advs. For the Respondent: Mr. K.R. Manjani, Adv. JUDGEMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 23.03.2007 passed in ITA No.1463/Del/2003 in respect of the Assessment Year 1998-99. 2. The assessee had written off an amount of Rs.81,28,269/- during the year in question on account of bad debts. The assessee had sold certain pagers to individual custo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the bad debts were not verifiable and identifiable and, therefore, disallowed the same confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. It may be pointed out at this juncture that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not make any adverse comment or did not dispute the assessee's contention that debts had been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year or of an earlier previous year. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) only focused on the verifiability and identifiability of the customers and the bad debts. 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the Commissioner of Income T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Supra) seeking remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify as to whether the assessee was entitled to the said deduction. However, we note that the decision in TRF Ltd (Supra) stood on a different footing on facts. In that case, it was not clear as to whether the bad debts had, in fact, been written off in the accounts of the assessee or not and it is for that purpose alone that the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a de novo consideration on this aspect only and, that too, only to the extent of the write off. 10. In the present case, the situation is entirely different. Here, it is an admitted position that the assessee had, in fact, written off the said bad debts in its books of accounts and had shown them as i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X