TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by resorting to the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of this ground are that the assessee showed outstanding balance of Rs. 20,50,00,000 in the name of M/s. Filtrona India Ltd. The Assessing Officer called for the confirmation of the loan from the said company. It was submitted by the company that it had not done any transaction with the assessee. In view of these facts the Assessing Officer came to hold that the provisions of section 41(1) were attracted. A further sum of Rs.18,21,770 was shown to have been payable by the assessee to M/s. Spider Impex Ltd. Letter dated February 22, 2005 was addressed to the said company which was returned unserved. The assessee was required to furnish the new address of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the account of Triad Construction Private Ltd. Both these concerns belonged the same group and the original credit of Rs. 21.53 crores in the account of Triad Construction P. Ltd. was generated due to receipt of loan. Due to certain recovery proceedings going on, M/s. Filtrona India Ltd. did not acknowledge the debt. The learned authorised representative has placed on record a copy of miscellaneous application filed before the Special Court constituted under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction Securities) Act, 1992 in which both Triad Construction P. Ltd. and Filtrona India Ltd., apart from other two concerns, are respondents. This miscellaneous application brings out the fact of the assessee having received a loan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transactions which subsequently became non-payable. In such a situation the provisions of section 41(1) get fully attracted. We, therefore, uphold the addition. This ground is partly allowed. 6. The third ground is against the upholding of addition of Rs. 15,90,882 on account of sundry balances written off. The facts apropos this ground are that the assessee wrote off sundry balances to the tune of Rs. 15,90,882 during the year. The Assessing Officer called for information of such balances. It transpires that the said amount represented three components as under: (Rs.) (i) M/s. Manav International (ii) Mrs. Laxminarayan (iii) Shri S. R. Narayanan 8,80,882 4,10,000 3,00,000 Total 15,90,882 7. It was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorised representative was that it should be considered as business loss under section 37(1). We are again unable to appreciate the view point of the learned authorised representative for the reason that there is no evidence worth the name to suggest that the amount was advanced in the course of business. Similar is the position regarding other two parties in respect of whom even the basic details have not been furnished. Rather no explanation worth the name has been given in respect of these two parties either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned first appellate authority. In view of the facts and circumstances we are satisfied that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in upholding this addition. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt got accumulated over some years with the assessee and was hence eventually written off in the year in question as non-recoverable. It has been categorically recorded in the impugned order that the assessee had been penalised for the FERA violations on this account and penalty of Rs. 6 crores has been levied vide order of the FERA dated March 12, 2005. This fact has not been controverted by the learned Departmental representative. The hon'ble Supreme Court in T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) has held that after April 1, 1989 the assessee is not required to establish that the debt has become bad in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Once an amount was written off as bad debt and the condition....