Devi Sahay Saxena v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6, Jaipur

(1) DB INCOME TAX APPEAL 58/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.58/2011 DEVI SAHAY SAXENA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR DATE: 16.12.2011 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA'HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. Devendra Kumar, for the appellant. **** BY THE COURT:(PER HON'BLE JAIN, J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2.Assessee/appellant has preferred this appeal underSection 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the orderdated 09.12.2010 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Jaipur Bench-'B', Jaipur in ITA No.283/JP/2010,whereby appeal filed by the Revenue was partly allowed. 3.The dispute in the present appeal relates to claimof Rs.2,00,000/- as bad debt, which was disallowed by theAssessing Officer and the same was added in the income of theassessee. The said addition was set aside by the AppellateAuthority, however, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal setaside the order of the Appellate Authority in this behalf and (2) DB INCOME TAX APPEAL 58/2011 restored the order of the Assessing Offcer. Hence, this appealhas been preferred. 4.The Assessing Officer, in its assessment order, inpara 6 has observed that assessee is unable to satisfy as towhat was his income against which this amount has beenclaimed as bad debt and since he has not given anysatisfactory explanation, nor has produced any oral ordocumentary evidence, therefore, the same is disallowed. 5.The learned Appellate Authority allowed the saidclaim holding that Assessing Officer was not justified indisallowing the aforesaid claim of Rs.2 lacs. The learnedTribunal considered the matter in detail and in para 3.4 of itsjudgment, came to a conclusion that bad debt in the presentcase cannot be considered to be allowed because it is not apart of payment relating to commission income. Para 3.4 ofthe order of the learned Tribunal is reproduced as under:- “We have heard both the parties. Theassessee is engaged in the business ofcommission. It is not the case of theassessee to procure land on his behalf.Moreover, there is no material on record tosuggest that the persons to whom advanceswere made, were not willing to return theadvance. The assessee has claimed the baddebt of Rs.2.00 lacs against the commissionincome. The sums so paid cannot beconsidered to have been paid for earningcommission. Hence, bad debt cannot beconsidered to be allowed because it is not apart of payment relating to commissionincome. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) was notjustified in deleting the addition of Rs.2.00lacs.” 6.We have considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel for the appellant in the light of reasons assigned bythe Assessing Officer, Appellate Authority and the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal and we are of the view that the reasonsassigned by the Tribunal for not allowing bad debt on theground that it is not a part of payment relating to commissionincome, are absolutely legal and justified. The said questionrelates to a question of fact and in our view, no substantialquestion of law is involved in this appeal so as to entertain it. 7.Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ./KKC/