The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iv, Pune v. Shri Tilokchand B. Shah, Solapur
High Court
08 Jun 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iv, Pune v. Shri Tilokchand B. Shah, Solapur
Date of order
08 Jun 2010
Assessment year(s)
2003-2004
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iv, Pune v. Shri Tilokchand B. Shah, Solapur, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. : 1.The issue in the appeal by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of bad debts of Rs.26,35,523/-.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2662 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – IV, Pune
Versus
Shri Tilokchand B. Shah, Solapur
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 8 June, 2010.
P.C. :
1.The issue in the appeal by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of bad debts of Rs.26,35,523/-. The order of the Tribunal relates to assessment year 2003-2004. The assessee had written off and claimed bad debts in the aforesaid amount in the return for assessment year 2003-2004. Though the assessee had a decree in its favour, the decree was passed as far back as in 1994 and the contention of the assessee was that certain property at Kolhapur could not be auctioned on account of a dispute with the local owners. Hence, the amount was
considered as unrealizable and was written off.
2.The assessee having written off the debts during the course of assessment year 2003-2004, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim. Though there was a consent decree, it has been passed as far back as in 1994 and the amount was unrealizable.
3.That apart, our attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.R.F. Limited V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (CivilAppeal 5293 of 2003)decided on 9 February 2010. The Supreme Court has clarified that after the amendment of Section 36(1)(vii) with effect from 1 April 1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establishthat the debt has not been recoverable and it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.
4.Consequently, both on facts and in law, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity.
5.The appeal by the Revenue does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.