2012 (8) TMI 431 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses Income Tax Appeal due to lack of evidence and adherence to procedural requirements

The Income Tax Appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal ruled against the appellant on all issues. The disallowance of bad debt claimed by the assessee was ... Embezzlement of cash by employee in AY 84-85 - loss claimed in the year 1990-91 - dis-allowance - Held that:- Tribunal on the findings that appellant is not in the business of handling of cash; if there was any embezzlement by any employee, apart from lodging of FIR, steps could be taken to recover the amount, which is not done. Further, letter of termination of the employee, or ; any notice or ; suit to recover the amount from him was not produced. Also, there was no relationship of debtor or creditor nor the amount was lost in the course of business. Hence, Tribunal has rightly held that same cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 10(1), 36 or 37(1). Interest paid on loan taken for the purpose of business - assessee contending allowance u/s 57 - Held that:- Each item of expenditure had been discussed by CIT(A). In the absence of verification of details, such expenses could not be allowed at the appellate stage. Further, expenses were not shown in the P/L A/c and was thus not allowable - Decided against the assessee. Issues:1. Disallowance of bad debt claimed by the assessee.2. Rejection of amount claimed by the appellant as due from employee.3. Allowability of interest paid to LIC and banks on loans for business under Section 57.Issue 1: Disallowance of bad debt claimed by the assesseeThe appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of bad debt claimed under Section 36 (i) (vii) of the Act. The appellant argued that the loss should be treated as a trading loss or as an expense under Section 37 (1) of the Act. The respondent contended that the alleged embezzlement by the employee did not qualify as bad debt or trading loss, citing precedents such as Chudgar and Co. Pvt Ltd and Dinesh Mills Ltd. The Tribunal found that the loss occurred in a previous year, no efforts were made to recover the amount, and there was no relationship of debtor and creditor. The issue was decided against the assessee.Issue 2: Rejection of amount claimed by the appellant as due from employeeThe Tribunal rejected the amount of Rs.1,87,389 claimed by the appellant as due from the employee, stating there was no debtor-creditor relationship between the parties. Precedents like Chudgar and Co. Pvt Ltd were cited to emphasize the burden of proof on the assessee to establish the embezzlement and loss. The Tribunal found no evidence presented by the assessee regarding the recovery efforts or termination of the employee. As a result, the claim was rejected, ruling in favor of the revenue.Issue 3: Allowability of interest paid to LIC and banks on loans under Section 57Regarding the interest paid to LIC and banks on loans for business purposes, the Tribunal found that the expenses were not verified in detail and were not shown in the Profit & Loss Account. Therefore, the expenses could not be allowed at the appellate stage. The Tribunal decided against the assessee on this issue as well, ruling in favor of the revenue.In conclusion, the Income Tax Appeal was dismissed based on the decisions made for each issue raised by the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing evidence, establishing relationships, and following proper procedures to support claims for deductions or losses under the Income Tax Act.