TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd DR. S. MURALIDHAR JJ. Ms. Sonia Mathur for the appellant. Satyen Sethi for the respondent. JUDGMENT 1. In this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the Revenue has challenged the judgment dated February 24, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "F" ("the Tribunal") in ITA No. 4045/Del/1999 for the assessment year 1995-96. 2. Admit. 3. The following question of law arises for consideration. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs sought to be written off by the assessee as a bad debt was in fact a business loss and liable to be treated as such. Filing of pap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tuted a capital loss and not a business loss. 7. In the further appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal took the view that since the asset was in fact not purchased and any hope of the money being recovered was lost, the said sum constituted only a business loss and had to be allowed as such. 8. Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal on this aspect suffers from perversity since the Tribunal appears to have accepted the submission, made for the first time by the assessee before it, that the sum advanced to M/s. Kapoor Sons was an advance rent and its non-return constituted a business loss. She further submits that when the assessee had itself ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he entire consideration of premises it decided to purchase. M/s. Kapoor Sons were pursued to refund the money which they refused and after waiting for three longs years, it was advised by company's auditor to write off the amount of Rs. 9 lakhs. The company acted as per advise of its statutory auditors and decided to write off this amount of Rs. 9 lakhs as bad debits." 11. The Tribunal did not refer to this letter at all. It simply concluded that since no asset was purchased by the assessee, the amount could not be treated as a capital loss. We find that on the face of it, the impugned order of the Tribunal is contrary to the facts of the case. We are unable to countenance the submission of learned counsel for the assessee that what wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
