TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder: "16-10-2000 Shri M.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on admission. As we find no substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed. (R.D. Vyas, J.) (Shambhoo Singh, J.)" The assessee then filed an appeal (SLP) to the Supreme Court being SLP No. (C) 8076/2000. Their Lordships granted leave to appeal in CA No. 2036/2003. By order dated March 7, 2003, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the aforementioned order passed by this court and remanded the case to this court after framing the substantial question of law for deciding the appeal on the merits. This is what their Lordships observed: "Leave is granted limited to the quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt shall now, dispose of the appeal after deciding the aforementioned question of law, on merits in accordance with law: The appeal is, accordingly, allowed." This is how this appeal is again listed for hearing on the merits pursuant to a remand order passed by their Lordship quoted supra. The appellant is an assessee. For the assessment year 1990-91, the appellant filed a return in her capacity as individual. The AO (the Assessing Officer) found that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,51,178 as bad debt. According to the assessee, she had given a loan to one company known as M/s. Techno Cast Pvt. Ltd. (for short called "company"). However, for some years the debtor, i.e., the company paid interest on the loan to the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s court having upheld the order of the Tribunal, the same was set aside by the Supreme Court resulting in remand to this court for deciding the appeal on the merits. Heard Mr. G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior advocate, with Mr. P.M Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. R.L. Jain, learned senior advocate with Ms. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent The submission of learned counsel for the assessee was that the amount in question is in fact a bad debt, and since it satisfies the requirement of section 36(2)(i) ibid, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction as provided in section 36(2)(i) ibid while computing her income referred to in section 28 ibid. In reply, learned counsel for the Revenue supported the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us year and it is written off. In other words, what is required to be seen is whether the assessee has declared the debt to be a written off debt in the previous year in his/her accounts or not. If it is so shown then the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of that portion of the amount which is declared as written off in the year in question. In our opinion, the assessee is able to prove the requirement of section 36(2)(i) in this case in relation to a sum of Rs. 3,51,178 and hence is entitled to claim deduction of the said amount as bad debt. Though neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) nor the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding as to whether this particular amount was shown and written....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for claiming deduction as provided in section 36(2)(i) ibid, are satisfied then, it necessarily follows that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction to the extent the amount is declared as written off in the previous year. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the debt in question is not a debt but it is a bogus transaction between the assessee and the company. It was his submission that the transaction in question was at best in the nature of advance and hence, the same does not fall in section 36 ibid. We do not agree to this submission. In the first place, no substantial question of law as such is framed on the nature of the transaction so as to entitle this court to examine the same on those lines. Secondly, even assu....