Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Commissioner vs M. Sahai

High Court Of Gujarat|28 June, 2012
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) We have heard Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department in this tax appeal. The tax appeal has been filed on the following proposed substantial question of law:-
"Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the amount of deduction claimed by the assessee - bank u/s. 36(1)(vii) in respect of bad debts written off required to be reduced by the opening balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account?"
The Assessing Officer passed an order whereby he disallowed the claim of bad debts of Rs.3,47,61,363/- under Section 36(1)(vii)of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2001-02. Against the said order, the Assessee filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal and granted relief of Rs.24,00,000/- to the Assessee. The Assessee, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for deleting the entire disallowance and cross appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the deduction of Rs.24,00,000/- granted by the Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals). In Paragraph 5, the Tribunal in its judgement dated 5.12.2008 recorded as under:
"5. The Department is aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the CIT (A). The grievance of the assessee, on the other hand, is that the CIT(A) should have allowed relief to the extent of Rs.3.47 Crores being opening balance admitted as deduction in the past year u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. At the time of hearing both the parties submitted that, identical issue has been considered in the assessee's own case in the assessment year 1998-99 in which a view has been taken that the amount of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act in respect of the bad debts written off was not required to be reduced by the opening balance in the provision of bad debt account. Since the issue has already been considered and decided by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case in the assessment year 1998-99 it is considered and decided by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case in the assessment year 1998-99 it is considered appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to examine the matter and allow the claim in accordance with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. Ground No.1 taken by the assess and sole ground taken by the department are disposed off accordingly.
Learned senior standing counsel for the appellant fairly informed this Court that tax appeal, with regard to assessment year 1998-99 being Tax Appeal No. 1077 of 2009 filed by the Revenue, has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.06.2012 for the aforesaid reasons. Since the question has been decided against the Revenue, therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
The proposed question of law does not raise the substantial question of law. The appeals do not have any merits and hence, dismissed accordingly.
(V.
M. Sahai, J.) (N.V.
Anjaria, J.) *fskazi Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Commissioner vs M. Sahai

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgementDate
28 June, 2012