TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g substantial question of law :" Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law by not allowing the deduction of Rs.3,50,000 under section 28 as business loss or under section 36 as bad debt against the said amount added as income under section 69 which amount was neither received back nor goods against that amount were received by the appellant ?" 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that Satish Kumar, assessee, had been earning Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 24,000 per year from the business of arranging trucks for carrying of coal to the destination of the purchasing parties and also labour for loading and unloading of the coal besides supervising that process. It came to the noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arrived at by the Assess-ing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, vide order datedFebruary 16, 2000. 6. The appellant still did not stay back and carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. The submissions raised on behalf of the asses-see before the Tribunal also did not yield any result in favour of the asses-see and consequently the appeal was dismissed onJuly 31, 2003. 7. The assessee thereafter moved a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act pleading that the Tribunal had ignored from consideration ground No. 4(b) taken by him and did not adjudicate upon the same. The said ground reads thus :"4(b) That alternatively even if it is income of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se demand drafts which were added to his income under section 69 of the Act. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 11 of its order are as under : "We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the material available on record. One of the claims of the assessee was that the amount given by way of draft was bad debt. This contention was without any evidence The assessee could not produce any correspondence with Shri Krishan Kumar Sharma in whose name drafts were purchased on March 9, 1990, March 31, 1990 and March 19, 2990 for Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 1, lakh and Rs. 1.50 lakh respectively. The assessee also could not produce any evidence that the amount utilized in the purchase of those drafts was of any pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e nowhere stated that the amount in question was used for the business purpose rather it was stated that the assessee was not having any business link with Shri Krishan Kumar Sharma in whose name the impugned drafts were purchased. The Assessing Officer made the addition on account of undisclosed investment in the drafts and since the assessee could not establish that the drafts in question were invested in the business so this claim of the learned counsel for the assessee is also not acceptable that it was business loss or a capital loss particularly when the assessee himself had stated that he was not having the business link with Shri Krishan Kumar Sharma Therefore, the amount in question was given for the purpose other than purposes and....