9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for such write. Therefore, the assessee discharged the primary onus and it is for the revenue to rebut the same. As such they have not brought or collected any incriminating information against the business decision of the assessee – Decided in favor of Assessee. - I.T.A. No.2292/M/2005 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2013 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao And Shri D. Karunakara Rao,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Nitesh Joshi Mr. K.K. Ved For the Respondent : Shri Dipak Rai Pote, DR ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM:- This appeal filed by the assessee on 24.3.2005 is against the order of CIT (A)- IV, Mumbai dated 22.12.2004 for the assessment year 2001-2002. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised return of income reducing the said claim to Rs. 1,06,87,655/- on that account. During the assessment proceedings, AO proposed to disallow the same for want of details and evidences. During the assessment proceedings, assessee filed written submissions justifying the claim in P L Account and explained that such write is necessary and relatable to the events of delivery of fake certificates and bad deliveries. On considering the same, AO rejected the assessee‟s submissions and disallowed the sum of Rs. 96,54,799/- out of Rs. 1.06 Crs. It is the AO‟s stand that the assessee did not discharge the onus and the relevant portion in this regard are reproduced as follows. "........The details submitted by the assessee have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 223;s own case, Shri Nitesh Joshi Mr. K.K. Ved, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the contents of para 9 of the said order of ITAT and stated that the assessee was given relief by the Tribunal on the facts which are identical in substance. In the said order, the Tribunal has appreciated the business decision of the assessee and also noticed the fact that the assessee has consistently following the similar accounting policy in the matters of shares‟ loss attributable to the wrong delivery, fake certificates etc. Tribunal has not appreciated the argument that the loss is allowable only in the year, the loss is crystallized. In fact, Tribunal appreciated the business decision of the assessee, who knows how to run his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs under consideration. Therefore, we uphold the same by rejecting the grounds of appeal for the assessment year 1999-2000 and ground no. 1 2 of appeal for the AY 2000-01." 9. It is also noticed that the Tribunal has followed the above order of the Tribunal for the AY 2002-2003 also as seen from para 4 of the order of the Tribunal dated 22.2.2013 and the same reads as under: "4. We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding the allowability of claim of deduction on account of write off of bad stock. The assessee is in share broking business and many a times, the clients or stock exchange return stocks to the assessee due to reasons such as difference in signature of transferor, forged / fake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally and consistently over the years and quantifies the loss for debiting to the P L account. It is a business decision‟ and upheld by the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for the other AYs. In fact, the stocks delivered in respect of Vipul Securities are found to be fake certificates and the assessee filed an FIR in this regard too. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that, in principle, the issue stands covered by the above mentioned orders of the Tribunal. From the order of the AO, we find that the assessee furnished the list of the scips involving the above said bad deliveries/fake certificates and also submitted the reasons for such write. Therefore, the assessee discharged the primary onus and it is for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
