TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and, therefore, is not allowable as an expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. First Issue 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the assessee had failed to file relevant contract notes and establish the loss/bad debt in the transactions for sale/purchase of shares. Our attention is drawn to the order of the CIT (Appeals), who had recorded that the respondent company had failed to file any documentary evidence in support of its claim in spite of specific opportunities provided by the Assessing Officer. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue is trying to make out a new case in the present appeal, which was not their stand before the tribunal and is not reflected or mentioned in the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer on examination of the profit and loss account noticed that the respondent-assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 1,62,96,953/- under the head "bad debt written off". Thereafter, vide order sheet entries dated 11th March, 2003, 18th March, 2003 and 24th March, 2003, the assessee was asked to justify the claim of bad debt shown in the name of Brijender Ahuja. The assessee was asked to give justification and file a detailed not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actions were entered with M/s Prasad & Co. (P) Ltd. on behalf of M/s First Capital-(India) Ltd.,s he was woking as Vice President of the company. Summons u/s 131 were also issued to M/s First Capital (India) Ltd., the employer company of Shri Brijender Ahuja, who vide their letter dated 24.03.2003 confirmed that all the transactions related with M/s Prasad & Co. (P) Ltd. have been done under the approval and supervision of Shri Brijender Ahuja, Vice President, only for the period 01.04.98 to 31.03.01 on behalf of the company M/s First Capital (India) Ltd. and not in his individual capacity." 6. Therefore, the question, which had arisen and was examined by the Assessing Officer, was whether the bad debt, which was shown in the name of Berjinder Ahuja, was genuine or not i.e. whether the transactions were undertaken by Berjinder Ahuja or were undertaken by First Capital (India) Ltd. The assessment order further records that statement of Rohit Prasad, one of the directors of the respondent-assessee, was recorded under Section 131 of the Act. In the said statement, he had stated that Berjinder Ahuja was, Vice President of First Capital (India) Ltd. and used to give orders for transa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken place, but had doubted and made observations whether the transactions had been correctly recorded in the name of Berjinder Ahuja. 8. On the question whether or not the amount should be allowed as bad debt, the tribunal has held that there was a dispute between the respondent-assessee and Berjinder Ahuja, who was denying his liability to pay the same. The respondent-assessee in view of the aforesaid facts had written off the said amount in their books of accounts. Referring to these factors, the tribunal has allowed the claim/contention of the respondent/assessee. The tribunal has inter alia held as under:- "11. We have heard the rival submission and have gone through the material available on record. We find that the details of the amount in dispute is as under as given by the assessee in written submissions:- Transaction Date Settlement No. Settlement Date Client Commitment Report Amt. paid to SE Amount received from SE 13.03.2000 1999052 27.03.2000 DSE 501,38,172 23.03.2000 1999053 23.03.2000 DSE 216,27,320 21.03.2000 2000012 31.03.2000 NSE 39,99,352 24.03.2000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee company on account of these share transactions. Once the brokerage income has been declared by the assessee company on account of these share transactions, the deduction on account of bad debt is allowable as per this judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court. In the present case also, the only objection of the Assessing Officer is that as per Shri Brijender Ahuja, there was no share transaction carried out in his individual capacity but even if these share transactions are to be considered as transactions belonging to Fist Capital India Ltd., the deduction has to be allowed to the assessee company u/s(1)(vii) because these debts have been written off by the assess company in the present year and this is not in the case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has received this amount from Shri Berijinder Ahuja or from M/s First Capital India Ltd. Hence, we allow deduction to the assessee on this account u/s 36(1)(vii). Ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed." 9. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the aforesaid amount has been written off in the books of account of the respondent-assessee. 10. The Supreme Court in T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC), has h....