TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 question to in the notice. This appeal is from the order of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion 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 assessee but in later years, the company failed to pay any interest. The company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upreme 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 view taken by the Tribunal and urged for its upholding. Having heard learned counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 off as a bad debt in the previous year, yet in our view, a perusal of the order of the BIFR (annexu....