Skip to content


Sat Parkash Ram Naranjan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Case No. 89 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1986]158ITR781(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 36(1) and 256(2)
AppellantSat Parkash Ram Naranjan
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant Advocate Bhagirath Dass and; Ramesh Kumar, Advs.
Respondent Advocate Ashok Bhan and; Ajay Mittal, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....requiring the tribunal to refer the above-noted two questions under section 256(2) of the act. 3. the learned counsel for the assessee does not dispute that the finding as to whether the debt is proved to be a bad debt or not is a finding of fact. this petition consequently must fail and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs......up to the tribunal holding that the assessee has failed to prove the said amount to be a bad debt. the assessee then moved an application under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), for referring the following two questions but the same was declined by the tribunal, vide order annexure 'e', dated january 6, 1977 :'(i) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was right in holding that the debt of rs. 86,905 had not become bad during the previous year under assessment ? (ii) if the answer to question no. 1 is in the affirmative whether the tribunal should have given a finding as to the year in which the debt became bad in view of the provisions of section 155(6) of the income-tax act, 1961?' 2......
Judgment:

S.P. Goyal, J.

1. The assessee, a dealer in foodgrains, in the assessment year 1972-73 claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 87,878 on account of bad debt which was due from M/s. Dil Chand Shah Bedi Lal, Jahanabad. His claim was negatived by all the authorities up to the Tribunal holding that the assessee has failed to prove the said amount to be a bad debt. The assessee then moved an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for referring the following two questions but the same was declined by the Tribunal, vide order annexure 'E', dated January 6, 1977 :

'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the debt of Rs. 86,905 had not become bad during the previous year under assessment ?

(ii) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative whether the Tribunal should have given a finding as to the year in which the debt became bad in view of the provisions of Section 155(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'

2. Thereafter, he moved the present petition for a mandamus requiring the Tribunal to refer the above-noted two questions under Section 256(2) of the Act.

3. The learned counsel for the assessee does not dispute that the finding as to whether the debt is proved to be a bad debt or not is a finding of fact. As no legal error could be pointed out in arriving at that finding, we find that question No. 1 as framed does not arise from the order of the Tribunal.

4. As regards the second question, a bare perusal of Section 155{6) of the Act would show that its provisions have no relevancy whatsoever to the facts of the present case and as such this question also does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. This petition consequently must fail and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //