TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff the same as a business loss. Tribunal had rightly held it to be a business loss as it was treated to be only a pilferage of the company funds by an employee or a Director on the Board of Company. Therefore, such findings of facts by the Tribunal do not give rise to any substantial question requiring our further consideration u/s 260A. Thus we do not find any merits in the Appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is liable to be dismissed. - Tax Case Appeal No. 195 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2019 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan For the Appellant : M/s. K.G.Usha Rani Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : M/s. Sumithra for M/s. R.Sivaraman J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but was also prosecuted by filing a criminal complaint in the Court of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, which is said to be still pending. 3 . The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference:- 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. During the course of internal audit check, the Assessee found that one of the employee Director embezzled an amount of ₹ 240 lakhs. Immediately the said employee was removed from directorship and steps were taken to recover the amount by way of civil and criminal proceedings. The Assessee has filed a criminal complaint before the XVII Metropo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince the conditions prescribed under Section 36(2) of the Act to claim the said deduction by way of bad debt were not complied with by the Assessee and also since there was a legal opinion obtained by the Assessee that the amount embezzled is recoverable, the same had therefore not turned as bad debt. It was urged that the learned Tribunal had erred in allowing the same as business loss in the hands of the Assessee. 5. The learned counsel for the Assessee supported the impugned order and opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the Revenue. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present case and the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
