RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THIS appeal is under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 by the assessee. The assessee suggested the following substantial questions stating them to be substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not accepting the claim of bed debt, especially when necessary evidence in respect of the fact that the debt became bad has already been produced ? 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not allowing the bad debt in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decided in case of CIT v. Dunlop India Ltd. : [1994]209ITR221(Cal) where the Hon'ble Court held that the entry of writing off is prima facie evidence of the debt having become bad but not a conclusive criterion and the onus rests on the assessee to establish that the debt has become bad in the relevant year ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the bad debt, especially when the assessee established that the debt has become bad in the relevant year ? 4. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not accepting the bad debt especially when the books of account were in the custody of the Department, till the disposal of even the appeal by the Hon'ble Tribunal and not returned to the appellant -assessee and the return was submitted on the basis of photostate copy of the books as provided by the Department ? Learned Counsel has urged that a claim for deduction of bad debts from the gross profits of the assessee has not been allowed primarily on the ground that the assessee has not written off debts in his books of account for the financial year ending on 31st March, 1999 for the relevant asst. yr. 1999 -2000 which is statutory condition required to be fulfilled before deduction on account of bad and doubtful debts in any assessment year can be claimed while computing taxable income for that year.
(3.) HAVING perused the assessment order, the order of the CIT(A) and the order of the Tribunal, we find that this contention is not substantiated.;