9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KAPADIA J.-This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dated October 20, 2000, in I.T.A. No. 7541 of 1996 in respect of the assessment year 1993-94. In this appeal, our opinion is sought on the following questions: "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal erred in holding that an amount of Rs. 2,63,816 claimed by the assessee by way of deduction on account of business loss was not allowable? (ii) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee had not proved the factum of embezzlement?" Facts: The assessee-company is a dealer in chemicals. For the year under consideration being the accounting year ending March 31, 1993, corresponding to the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of embezzlement has not been proved and consequently the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Department. Accordingly, the assessee has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. Arguments: Mr. Vipul Joshi, the learned advocate for appellant-assessee, vehemently urged that, in this case, the Tribunal had lost sight of a draft report prepared by the chartered accountant of the assessee which came to be seized by the Department on April 21, 1993, when search operations were carried out. He submitted that this report was in the stage of preparation when the Department carried out the search. He stated that this report has not been obtained after the search. That, this report was made by the chartered accountant after the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia. The burden was on the assessee to produce relevant documents as the assessee was claiming deduction. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the factum of embezzlement has not been proved by the assessee. Lastly, we may mention that no substantial ground of appeal arises in this case under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal. Conclusion: Accordingly, we answer both the above questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. In view of our findings to the above two questions, it is not necessary for us to answer question No. (iii). In the circumstances, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
