R.R. Misra, J. - (1.) FOR the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee raised the following questions before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to be referred to this court for its opinion : " 1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in disallowing a sum of Rs. 6,75,000 pertaining to bonus relating to the assessment year 1980-81, paid during the year in question ? 2. Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not allowing the claim of bad debts in the accounts of M/s. Andrews Erectors, Obra, and Shri Rum Prakash Sharma during the year in question when the amounts were written off and its bona fides were not in dispute ? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relying on the letters of the Tahsildar dated 15th February, 1981, based on a letter from Hindustan Steel Works and Construction dated December 29, 1980, was not wrong and misdirected in finding that the bad debt of M/s. Andrews Erectors fell beyond the date of February, 1981 ? 4. Whether the letter dated December 29, 1980, of Hindustan Steel Works and Construction, referred to by the Tahsildar was not sufficient material for treating the amount in the account of M/s. Andrews Erectors having become bad during the year and whether the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in treating the bad debt as not falling in the year in question was not perverse ? 5. Whether, in the case of banking companies, where the matter is under the strict supervision of the Reserve Bank and other authorities and wriling off being under the direction of the board in bona fide cases and their bona fides in writing off not being doubted, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not allowing bad debts in the accounts of M/s. Andrews Erectors and Shri Ram Prakash Sharma ? 6. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not allowing the bad debts in the account of Shri Ram Prakash Sharma, where no civil suits were filed and only criminal proceedings were initiated and thereby treating the debt as having become bad earlier ? 7. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that, on certain sticky accounts on which no interest was charged, the system of accounting was mercantile ? 8. Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in including interest on sticky accounts, whose operations were closed for more than three preceding years and not following the board's circular of September, 1984 ? 9. Whether there was any real income on such sticky accounts wherefrom no interest was charged and there was bad financial condition ? 10. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, not charging of interest on such sticky accounts was not a bona fide change of system of accounting for these accounts from mercantile to cash system and whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no change in the system of accounting ? 11. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in finding that there could not be a change in the system of accounting for certain transactions in money-lending business and thereby not accepting the cash system of accounting for sticky accounts ? 12. Whether the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not perverse in holding that there was no change in the system of accounting for sticky accounts based on inferences and deductions ignoring relevant material and evidence on record ? "
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the assessee. The first question relates to the disallowance of Rs. 6,75,000 pertaining to bonus relating to the assessment year 1980-81. With regard to this, the Tribunal observed in its appellate order by recording a finding that the bonus for the year 1979-80 has already been allowed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1981-82. This being the position, we find no defect in the order of the Tribunal in refusing to refer the said question to this court. Questions Nos. 2 to 6 relate to the disallowance of the claim of bad debt in the accounts of M/s. Andrews Erectors, Obra, and Shri Ram Prakash Sharma. Having heard learned counsel for the assessee and having gone through the findings recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in this regard, we find that the Tribunal, in the impugned order, recorded a finding of fact that the point at which the said amount of loan to M/s. Andrews Erectors, Obra, became a bad debt falls beyond the assessment year in question. Towards the end, the Tribunal has also stated that it will be open to the assessee to put in its claim in the relevant year, if so advised. In the said view taken by the Tribunal, we find no error of law. As regards the alleged bad debt to Shri Ram Prakash Sharma, the Tribunal has recorded a finding to the effect that it was not a bad debt at all. We see no infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Questions Nos. 7 to 12 raised by the assessee relate to the interest on account of sticky advances. From a perusal of the appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it is clear that the stand taken by the assessee in this regard before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was that although the system of accounting was mercantile, yet with regard to the sticky loans in question, i.e., for certain transactions, the contention of the assessee was that it should be assessed on the cash system of accounting. This argument has been repelled by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In doing so, in our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law. Further, we also find that, with regard to the sticky loans on this question, the matter was taken to this court earlier and was decided inter partes (Banaras State Bank v. CIT 1991. 187 1TR 145 ; 1990. UPTC 1005). The refusal to refer the said alleged question of law by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on this point was also affirmed by this court. We are also in agreement with the same. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in refusing to refer the said question to this court.
(3.) IN view of this, in our opinion, this application has got no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Costs easy.;