The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kala Mines And Minerals

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2016 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. Versus KALA MINES AND MINERALS. ... Appellant... Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Appellant.Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. PramodVaidya, Advocate for the Respondent. -Coram:F. M. REIS &NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.-Date:21st February, 2017 P.C.: Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Junior Standing Counselappearing for the Appellant and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The challenge in the above appeal is essentially theallowance of a deduction towards bad debt sought by theRespondent assessee. It is the contention of the learned Jr.Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the Tribunalwas not justified to recognise such deduction as a baddebt/business loss as a recovery was initiated by the respondent. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Tribunalhas essentially accepted such contention of theRespondent/Assesee though proceedings were initiated by the Respondent for recovery of the said amount before the CivilCourt. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent howeverpointed out that, in the meanwhile, the suit has been dismissedand even an attempt to refer the matter to the Arbitrator hasalready been disposed of and an award has been passed rejectingthe claim of the Respondent/Assessee. Learned Senior Counselhas also placed on record the Judgment of this Court as well asthe award of the learned Arbitrator. It is further pointed out thatthe Respondent/Assessee has not preferred an appeal orchallenged the said Judgment. It is pointed out that, in themeanwhile proceedings before the Arbitrator have concluded andthe claim of the Respondent/Assessee has been rejected. Mr.Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondentfurther submits that they have no dispute to the award passed bythe Arbitrator. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellantas such pointed out that the grounds on which theAppellant/Revenue was refusing to allow the deduction claimedby the Respondent assessee no longer survives in view of suchaward passed by the learned Arbitrator. 3. In such circumstances, as the learned Counsel appearing forthe Appellant fairly accepts the position that such ground nolonger subsists, we find that there is no infirmity in the impugnedorders passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, there are nosubstantial questions of law which arise for consideration. The appeal stands, accordingly, rejected. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. msr F. M. REIS, J.