9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the addition - HELD THAT:- The finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) is that loan was accepted through banking channel and the details furnished by the authorized signatory of the Director were not verified vis-a-vis the records available with the AO in its proper perspective. This finding of the CIT(A) also came to be affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Disallowance on account of bad debts written off - Tribunal upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting the addition - HELD THAT:- After Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of TRF Ltd. [ 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] it is not mandatory on the part of appellant to establish that debt has become bad or appellant s bonafide about the irrecoverability of debt. The only condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act, 1961 ) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal D Bench, Ahmedabad dated 26.10.2018 in ITA No.1775/Ahd/2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions as the substantial questions of law in its memorandum of the Tax Appeal : [ A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of ₹ 83,71,764/- made on account of setting of STCG against depreciation? [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act. In this regard, the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 920 . The ratio of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. (Supra) is that there is a duty cast on the ITO to apply the relevant provisions of the Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of the assessee s taxable income and the consequential tax liability. The Appellate Tribunal concurred with such findings of the CIT(A). The Tribunal also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. (Supra). Ultimately, the Tribunal observed as under, so far as the first proposed question is concerned : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Assessing Officer failed to consider that the loan was accepted through banking channel only and the details which was given by the authorized signatory of the Director were also not verified vis-a-vis records available with him in its proper perspective. The said lacuna has rightly been pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) and deleted the addition accordingly. We thus do not find any infirmity in the order of the LD. CIT(A). The ground of appeal referred by the Revenue is therefore disallowed by us. 3.2 The finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) is that loan was accepted through banking channel and the details furnished by the authorized signatory of the Director were not verified vis-a-vis the records available with the AO i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court, the A.O. is directed to allow the claim of bad debt written off of ₹ 5,49,74,891/- and delete the addition so made. The appellant gets relief accordingly. This ground is allowed. 33. Relying upon the judgment of TRF Ltd. (supra) as being settled principle of law, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the same if hereby upheld. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra). 3.4 So far as the fourth question as proposed by the Revenue is concerned, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are as under : 37. In appeal, those documents we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter of Saurin Nandkumar Shodhan, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 3.5 Thus, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Revenue Authorities on all the four proposed questions referred to above. In our opinion, no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. The Tax Appeal is more on facts rather than any question of law involved in the matter. We do not find any substantial question of law involved in this Tax Appeal. 4. In the result, this Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
