Itxa/1432/2016 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd

Priya Soparkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1432 OF 2016 The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-4 V/s. M/s Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. --- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.Atul Jasani for the Respondent. --- … Appellant … Respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 22, 2019. P.C.:- 1.This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 30[th] September,2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2.The Revenue urges the following question of law for ourconsideration: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstance ofthe case and in law the Tribunal has erred indeleting the addition of Rs.12,58,17,269/- made by the A.O. on account of bad debts?” 3.The respondent-assessee had filed its return of income on30[th] September, 2010 declaring a loss of Rs.74.27 lakhs for thesubject assessment year. During the assessment proceedings theAssessing Officer noticed that the respondent had debited anamount of Rs.13.40 crores to its profit and loss account as baddebt written off. This the Assessing Officer disallowed on theground that the bad debt figure had not been finally crystallizedas there were claims and counter-claims between the parties andthe Arbitration Proceedings were pending. 4.Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal to theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). By order dated6[th] January, 2014, the CIT(A) on facts found that the amounthas been crystallized as there was no counter-claim filed by theparties concerned and the Arbitration Award has also been passed.Thus, allowed the appeal of the respondent to the extent ofRs.12.58 crores as bad debts written off, as the balance had beenpaid by the parties. Priya Soparkar 316 itxa 1432-16-o-s 5.Being aggrieved with the order of the CIT (A) the revenuefiled an appeal to the Tribunal. On facts the impugned order of theTribunal found that letters were addressed by the partiesadmitting their liabilities with a request for settlement. Thus,there was no issue of counter-claim. Further, it also found thedispute a facts had settled in Arbitration and the respondent hadreceived some amount in terms of Award. It was only theremaining amount of Rs.12.58 crores which has been allowed asbad debt. Thus, dismissed the Revenue's appeal . 6.We find that both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal haverendered a concurrent finding of fact holding that the amountswritten off as bad debts had been crystallized. This finding of facthas not been perverse in any manner. In the above view, thequestion as proposed does not give rise to any substantialquestion of law. Thus, not entertained. 7.Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….