9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained in order dated September 19, 1989, of this court in M. C. C. No. 235 of 1983 on an application having been made to this court by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jabalpur, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debt of Rs. 45,370 was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the same had been written off with ulterior motive. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee had not taken any legal steps for the recovery of the dues and the transaction with the Cuttack party was not genuine. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jabalpur, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by learned counsel for the assessee the narration in the agreement between the assessee and Seema Traders that the loss could be claimed as business loss is of no relevance. It has to be independently examined whether the assessee is entitled to the claim of bad debt. That there was a party called 'Seema Traders' in Cuttack is not denied. The transactions with it took place in the ordinary course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the assessee and Seema Traders. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to deduct Rs. 45,370 as bad debt. The addition made by the Income-tax Officer and sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this behalf is deleted." From the above-quoted observations of the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has categorically held that the Income-tax Officer had failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
