2009 (9) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,62,326/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bad debts written off because no efforts for recovery were made at all and the court decree was obtained in the year 1988?" 2. The assessee claimed bad debt in respect of payments for supply of tractors to M/s Aneja Traders. The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction on that account on the ground that the assessee did not show that any serious efforts were made for the recovery. The CIT(A) upheld the said view. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee waited for some time and was fully conversant with the fact that debt was irrecoverable. The decision of the assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee that in view of the decision of Tribunal in the case of Gokaldas Pragji (Supra) the amount in question was allowable as a business loss u/s 28(1) of the Act. Thus viewed from any angle, the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs.2,62,326/-.  We hold and direct accordingly." 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the opinion of the assessee was genuine for declaring the amount as bad debt. He submits that even though after 1.4.1989, there is an amendment to Section 36 (1)(vii), for the period prior thereto, the assessee was required to show that there was justification for writing off the bad debt. He also subm....