9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d liability, which arose during the accounting year under appeal, the grounds of appeal states that the Commissioner(A) had not ascertained the full facts relating to the liability provided for and therefore its allowance was uncalled for. The learned Commissioner(A) observed in his order : " The amount relates to provisions made in the year and the ground taken by the ITO is that the reason for which this liability arose was not given by the appellant. It is contended that this provision was for law charges payable to M/s Khetan & Co. in connection with a suit for realisation of outstanding dues of Rs. 6,18,862 from M/s Leslie Motors & Others. The bill in question was received during the relevant accounting period and the same was shown t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s therefore rejected. 3. In the next ground objection was taken to the allowance of a bad debt of Rs. 1,29,780 on the sole ground that the Commissioner(A) had accepted additional evidence in contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A. This is an amount due from one Shri Ram Marolia, which was written off as bad debt. This claim was made earlier in the assessment year 1967-68. The matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in ITA No. 1818 (All.) of 1972-73 on 30-9-1974 and the claim was not allowed not on the ground that the bad debt did not arise but on the ground that the immovable properties offered as security had till then not being auctioned. That amount had now been claimed as a deduction. The Income-tax O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary to prove the contents unless a strong evidence comes forth to disprove that noting. There was no such proof coming forth from the side of the assessee. It is therefore to be presumed that the assessee had given up this ground consciously before the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner. When a ground was not pressed before the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner, the assessee could not be said to be aggrieved by this decision of the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner. Therefore the assessee could not prefer an appeal against that ground. The Commissioner(A) to our mind was not justified in entertaining this ground and in giving relief to the assessee particularly without following the provisions of Rule 46A. We think there is substance in the ground ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Commissioner(A) had held that in some transactions there were profits while in others there were loss, the net result of which was a loss of Rs. 1,10,493. What weighed with him mostly was that he considered this matter in the appeal relating to the assessment year 1967-68. We do not exactly know what has happened in the assessment year 1967-68. Neither party before us is able to throw any light on as to what happened in the assessment year 1967-68. That apart we are now in the assessment year 1980-81 roughly 14 years thereafter. In this long period of duration the assessee even if it had been a dealer in the past could have changed the portfolio of the shares from that of stock-in-trade to that of investment. So placing reliance on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
