The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Shri Prashant J. Patel

srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1300 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 ...Appellant Versus Shri Prashant J. Patel ...Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr.Sanjiv Shah for respondent. CORAM: DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. February 28, 2012. P.C. 1.The following questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim is allowable without giving any finding as itxa-1300-11 to whether the claim is allowable as bad debt or business loss; and (b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in relying upon the decision of Special Bench in the case of Shreyas Morakhia ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (A) have observed that the debt is not a bad debt. 2.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and the counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee are agreed that the second question shall stand covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment delivered today in Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai Vs. Shri Shreyas S. Morakhia.[1] As regards the first question, the Revenue has framed the question on the basis that no finding was given as to whether the claim was allowable as a bad debt or as a business loss. As a matter of fact a finding has been given by the Tribunal in its judgment. 1. Income Tax Appeal No.89 of 2011 decided on 28/2/2011 itxa-1300-11 However, since the claim of the assessee has been upheld and in view of the judgment delivered in the companion appeal under section 36(1)(vii), the issue as regards whether the claim was allowable as a business loss is kept open. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)