TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in unequivocal terms, held that there was no material available to prove that the loss incurred by the appellant / assessee was for the purpose of acquiring the property at Coimbatore for expansion of its business and hence, the same was not treated as business loss / bad debts. Such a finding rendered by the authorities below, based on the material evidence, does not require any interfere by this court. Further, the decision relied on the side of the appellant as was made before the Tribunal, is of no help to the case of the appellant / assessee, as it is factually distinguishable. It is settled law that a court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right, but only when it is shown to be wrong [Refer: Dollar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g officer. The second appeal filed by the appellant before the ITAT, Chennai also ended in dismissal, by order dated 26.07.2012, which is impugned in this appeal. 3.On 21.11.2012, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the disallowance of the claim of business loss u/s.28 of the Act which claim was alternatively made as against the original claim of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act in relation to the transaction involving advancing of monies for purchase of property in the process of making an attempt to expand the business of the appellant by misreading the facts of the case resulting in perversity in the order passed by them? 4.The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ultimately, it is submitted that the loss incurred by the appellant/assessee had to be allowed as business loss or bad debt and hence, the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order of the authorities below. 5.On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the materials available before the same, the authorities below uniformly held that the loss incurred by the appellant / assessee cannot be treated as business loss for the purpose of deduction under the Act and hence, their well considered findings need not be interfered with by this court. 6.We have heard both sides and perused the materials available o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having observed that the facts mentioned by the appellant were entirely different from what were given in the complaint filed before the police station and the appellant could not establish any business link or commercial expediency for the commission of ₹ 25 lakhs paid to the agent; and the appellant also could not produce any agreement or correspondence which could show that there was any business purpose behind the sum being given and hence, the amount was not advanced in respect of the business carried on by the appellant nor has any business connection with the firm. 10.The Tribunal also affirmed the findings of the appellate authority and dismissed the further appeal filed by the appellant in this regard and the detailed find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced any records to show that the sum paid was for business purpose or for commercial expediency, the claim, in our opinion, was rightly disallowed. Assessee might have accounted the payment made by Shri K.P.S.Prakash in its books. Recording of such transaction by itself would not render it an allowable expense either as bad debt or as a business loss. If it was only a fee paid for arranging loan for the assessee's business, the amount need not have been shown as debt due from Shri Ramar. Having suffered a personal loss, Shri K.P.S.Prakash was only trying to charge such loss in the accounts of the assessee by claiming it as bad debt. Neither it was allowable as bad debt nor as a business loss. No business purpose was demonstrated by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterfere by this court. Further, the decision relied on the side of the appellant as was made before the Tribunal, is of no help to the case of the appellant / assessee, as it is factually distinguishable. 12.At this juncture, it may be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metroark Ltd. v. CCE [(2004) 12 SCC 505], wherein it was held as under: 8. Even otherwise, the law on the subject is clear. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Unless it is shown that there is something perverse in its finding, this Court would not interfere. No authority is required for this purpose. But as a large number of authorities are cited, we refer to them: Pragati Computers (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
