Leasehold agricultural property and bad debt treatment: claim rejected where the advance had ceased to be loan security.

The advance had lost its original money-lending character, and the thika properties were construed as leasehold agricultural properties rather than continuing security for a debt. On that basis, the amount claimed could not be treated as an admissible bad debt or as a revenue loss under the income-tax law, because the alleged loss did not arise from a subsisting loan security. The court also declined to rely on additional letters and materials not shown to have been before the Tribunal. The claim for deduction was therefore rejected and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sum claimed by the assessee could be allowed as a revenue loss or admissible bad debt, or whether the relevant thika properties had ceased to be a security for loan and had become agricultural property outside the income-tax field.

Analysis: The Tribunal's finding that the original money-lending character of the advance had changed was upheld. The lease deeds were construed, in the light of the Supreme Court's earlier decision concerning the same transaction, as creating a leasehold arrangement under which the payment was premium and not a continuing loan security. Once the properties were held to be leasehold agricultural properties and not security for a debt, the alleged loss could not be treated as a bad debt or revenue loss within the Act. The court also rejected the attempt to rely on additional letters and materials not shown to have been relied upon before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The claim for allowance of Rs. 29,16,000 as revenue loss or admissible bad debt was not sustainable, and the answer to the reference was in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

---