9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ects of the case with regard to the amount of Rs. 23,741 disallowed by the Income-tax Officer ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 23,741 claimed by the assessee as defalcated amount was justified ?" During the assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 1973-74 corresponding to Samvat year 2028, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 23,741 as business loss on the ground that the said amount was misappropriated by its accountant. According to the assessee, the accountant had collected various amounts from the parties who were liable B to pay those amounts to the assessee but had not credited the same in the account books of the assessee and had thereby misappropriated the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o this court. What is contended by learned counsel for the assessee is that really the Tribunal is guilty of having misdirected itself on facts when it observed that no evidence was there on the record to show that the assessee's accountant had misappropriated the said amounts. He submitted that detailed accounts were produced before the Income-tax Officer. In the statement of facts filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was clearly mentioned that the necessary details of defalcation were filed before the Income-tax Officer and yet this statement was not controverted by the Income-tax Officer even though he was present during the hearing of the appeal. He further submitted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellate Assistant Commissioner. There was some material before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was, therefore, not correct to hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had misconceived the facts and had misdirected himself on all material aspects of the case. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the negative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and state that it cannot be said that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had misconceived the facts. Question No. 2 need not be answered at this stage as the Tribunal will have to examine on merits whether, in view of the material on record, it can be said that the said amount was in fact defalcated and the assessee's claim in that behalf was justified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
