Itxa/5418/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4 Mumbai v. Ruchiraj Shares And Stock Brokers Pvt.ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1828 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Ruchiraj Shares & Stocks Brokers Pvt. Ltd...Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. Office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. At the instance of the revenue, appeal is taken up for admission. 2.The question sought to be raised revolved around the appreciation of evidence which the Tribunal has dealt with by recording the finding which reads as under:- " We have carefully perused the decision of the Co-ordinate Jurisdictional Bench and found that the issue in question is covered by the said decision. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced hereunder:- "The assessee firm acted as an agent for purchase and sale on behalf of its clients and in the ordinary course of business made payments on behalf of those parties. It was the admitted case of the parties that those parties had not accepted their liability. However, the assessee-firm had debited the amount to the profit and loss account. Further, the assessee firm had submitted the explanation and details of the parties against whom the amount was claimed. The assessee-firm had purchased shares from other members as well as from the stock exchange on behalf of its clients and, therefore, it was bound to make the payment to the Stock Exchange Board and, therefore, the assessee -firm had acted in the ordinary course of its business and, hence, there was no doubt that the bad debt which had been claimed by the assessee-firm was in course of the payment made on behalf of its clients to the Stock Exchange Board. As evident from the facts, the assessee had also initiated arbitration proceedings and as result of such proceedings recovery was made in case of one of the parties and amount so recovered had been offered for tax in the year in which the recovery was made. From the above facts, it was evident that the bad debt claimed by the assessee sprang directly from the business of the assessee and, therefore, was allowable as bad debt and, consequently, the same was to be allowed as business loss under section 28. Hence the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. " 3.The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)