ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI v. T. PITAMABER, MUMBAI

ITA 868/MUM/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 86819914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AADFA9171D
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 868/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI
Respondent T. PITAMABER, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 20-06-2011
Next Hearing Date 20-06-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 04-02-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 868 AND 869/MUM./2010 (A.YS : 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ) DATE OF HEARING 20.6.2011 DATE OF DICTATI ON : 6.7.2011 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-20(3) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL MUMBAI 400 012 .. APPELLANT V/S SHRI T. PITAMBER PROPRIETOR M/S. COST PLUS EXPORTS (BOMBAY) A/49 GIRIRAJ INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400 093 PAN AADFA9171D .... RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MR. G.P. TRIVEDI ASSESSEE BY : MR. S.C. TIWARI O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER 30 TH NOVEMBER 2009 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS )- XXXI MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENTS YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006 -07 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE SOLE ISSUE ARISING IN THESE APPEALS ARE C OMMON THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED BY WAY O F THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. MR. T. PITAMBER ITA NO.868/M/2010 ITA NO.869/M/2010 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL IS IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF GARMENTS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31 ST OCTOBER 2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 12 06 940 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND ON 31 ST OCTOBER 2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 30 20 600 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BOTH THE CASES DISALLOWED BUSINESS LOSS CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF WRIT E-OFF OF BAD DEBT. CERTAIN OTHER DISALLOWANCES WERE ALSO MADE. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN FIRST APPEAL WHEREIN THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS) GRANTED PART RELIEF. BEING AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE O F BAD DEBT. 3. FACTS OF THIS CASE AS BROUGHT OUT IN THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) VIDE PAGES-2 AND 3 / PARA-4 ARE EXTRACTE D BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- 4. .. AS PER THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE THE AP PELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF GAR MENTS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN ASSESSMENT THE A.O. H AS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED BUSINESS LOSS OF ` 9 97 894 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 AND ` 54 00 000 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ADVANCED CERTAIN AMOUNTS TO DIFFERENT PARTIES IN HIS EARLIER YEARS WHICH WERE NOT RECOVERABLE AND THEREFORE WRITTEN OFF DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE PARTI CULARS THERE OF ARE AS UNDER:- S.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY A.Y. 2005-06 A.Y. 2006-07 1. BLUE BIRD INDIA 4 50 000 - 2. THE ENTERPRISES 5 00 000 - 3. SUNSOFT TECHN. P. LTD. 42 894 - 4. VIJAY NARASINHA 5 000 - 5. SUNSOFT TECHN. P. LTD. - 50 00 000 6. PAPILLON PRO. MILLS P. LTD. - 4 00 000 9 97 894 54 00 000 4.1 THE A.O. HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LOSS CLA IMED ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE OFF AS BAD DEBTS / BUSINESS LOSS IS NOT AL LOWABLE UNDER SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT SINCE THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF MR. T. PITAMBER ITA NO.868/M/2010 ITA NO.869/M/2010 3 MONEY LENDING. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE A.O. T HAT THE APPELLANT INITIALLY EXPLAINED THAT THE ADVANCE GIVEN WAS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND BUT LATER ON SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS FOR THE PROCUR EMENT OF RAW MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT OF WEBSITE ADVANCE TO EMPLOY EES BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS ETC. AS DISCUSSED IN PARA-4.2.1 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 AND PARA-4.1 OF THE A.Y. 2006- 07. HOWEVER THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLAN T DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I) THE ACCOUNTANT STATED THE ADVANCES TO BE FOR THE PU RPOSE OF PURCHASE OF LAND WHEREAS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE SPEAKS ABOUT THE ADVANCES FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIAL FOR EXPORT OF GARMENT BUSINESS OF THE ASSE SSEE. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED ITS STAND WHILE GIVING THE SUBMISSION IN WRITING. II) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTIONS MADE ABOVE I.E. THE DETAILS OF THE BANK CHEQUE NUMBER ETC. OF THE ADVANCES GRANTED. NO ADD RESSES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM ADVANCES ARE STATED TO HAVE BEE N GIVEN HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. III) THE ADVANCES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS AS THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES GIVEN IS OF CAPITAL IN NATURE A ND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD ALSO TO PROVE THAT HOW THE ADVANC ES HAD BECOME IRRECOVERABLE ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN THE ADVAN CES WERE GIVEN WAY BACK IN 1991 1992 AND 1994. IV) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED BY WAY OF ANY EVIDENCES WHATSOEVER THAT THE ADVANCES GRANTED TO THE ABOVE N AMED PARTIES WERE IN FACT IRRECOVERABLE AND ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE EFFORTS FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT FROM THE ABO VE PARTIES. 4.1.1 ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ENTIRE LOSS CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE OFF OF ADVANCES OR LOSS IS DISALLO WED SINCE ACCORDING TO THE A.O. ADVANCES CLAIMED AS IRRECOVERABLE ARE N OT GENUINE AND THE LOSS CLAIMED IS CAPITAL LOSS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER TH E ACT. 4. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE REASONS GIV EN AT PARA-4.3 OF HIS ORDER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING TH AT THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO HIS BUSINESS OPERAT IONS AND IT IS A GENUINE LOSS. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE MR. G.P. TRIVEDI RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SU BMITS THAT THE LOSS IS A CAPITAL LOSS AND HAS WRONGLY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS). MR. T. PITAMBER ITA NO.868/M/2010 ITA NO.869/M/2010 4 HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE THAT THE ADVANCES BECOME IRRECOVERABLE AND NO OTHER DETAILS WERE FILED. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE LIKE DETAILS OF BANK CHEQUES NUMBER ADDRESS OF THE PART IES ETC. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN IN THE YEARS 1991 1992 19 93 AND 1994 AND IT IS NOT DEMONSTRATED AS TO HOW THE ADVANCES HAVE BECOME BAD IN THIS PARTICULAR YEAR. HE REFERRED TO PAGE-3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITS THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE A DVANCES HAVE BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. S.C. TIWARI ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY AS AT PARA-2/PAGE-1 HE HAS STATED THAT VARIOUS DETAILS C ALLED FOR HAVE BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN SCR UTINIZED. HE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT WHATEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AS KED FOR HAS BEEN FILED. HE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO GRIEVANCE IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER THAT THE PARTICULAR EVIDENCE WHICH IS CALLED FOR HAS NOT BEE N FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IF ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR THE ASSES SEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO FILE THE SAME. CIT V/S KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE (1964) 53 ITR 225 (S C); CIT V/S NIRBHERAM DALURAM (1997) 224 ITR 610 (SC); AND SMT. PRABHAVATI S. SHAH V/S CIT (1998) 231 ITR 001 (BOM.). 7. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE SOLE ISSUE IS THE YEAR OF ALLOWABILITY. ACCORDING TO HIM THE YEAR OF WRITE-OFF IS THE YEAR OF ALLOWABILITY. HE CONTENDS THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS THE PO WER UNDER THE ACT TO ENTERTAIN ANY INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE FOR ARRIVING AT THE CORRECT DECISION. FOR THE PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LA WS:- MR. T. PITAMBER ITA NO.868/M/2010 ITA NO.869/M/2010 5 BADRIDAS DAGA V/S CIT (1958) 034 ITR 010 (SC); AND JETHABHAI HIRJI & JETHABHAI RAMDAS V/S CIT (1979) 120 ITR 792 (BOM.). 8. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TH AT CIVIL SUIT SHOULD BE FILED FOR PROVIDING THAT AN ADVANCE IS NOT RECOV ERABLE AND FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE C ALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN A.W. FIGGIS & CO. V/S CIT (2002) 254 ITR 63 (CAL.). HE POINTS OUT THAT THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIAL AND HEN CE A LOSS WHICH IS INCURRED FOR THE SAME WOULD BE A REVENUE LOSS AND N OT A CAPITAL LOSS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS HE RELIED ON THE JUDGME NT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN I.B.M. WORLD TRADE COR PORATION V/S CIT (1990) 186 ITR 412 (BOM.). HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT ENDURING ANY BENEFIT DUE TO WRITE-OFF OF THIS LOSS AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT BY INCURRING THIS EXPENDITURE THE ASS ESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER. HE FILED A PAP ER BOOK RUNNING INTO 92 PAGES AND DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE VA RIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO DEMONSTRATE HIS C ASE THAT ADEQUATE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AND THAT FACTUALLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONTROVERTED ANY OF THE E VIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN HIS REPLY SUBMITS THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE SUPPLIED ALL THE MATERIALS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE COMING TO A CONCLUSION. IN ANY EVENT HE SUBMITS THAT SUCH LOSS IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT AS IT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 10. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON PERUSAL OF THE PAP ERS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- I) THE POINTS HAVE BEEN SUMMARISED AT PAGE-8 OF THE CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS)S ORDER WHICH ARE EXTRACTED BELOW FOR RE ADY REFERENCE:- MR. T. PITAMBER ITA NO.868/M/2010 ITA NO.869/M/2010 6 I) THE ADVANCES ARE MADE IN HIS EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF MATERIAL AEPC QUOTA ADVANCE GIVEN TO HIS EMPLOYER EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS TECHNOLOGY UP-GRADATIO N AND PROCESSING OF FABRICS FOR EXPORTS ETC. II) THE EXPENSES OR ADVANCES GIVEN IN HIS EARLIER Y EARS ARE DULY DISCLOSED IN HIS RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED . III) THERE IS DIRECT AND PROXIMATE NEXUS BETWEEN TH E BUSINESS OPERATION AND THE LOSS OR IN OTHER WORDS THE LOSS CLAIMED IS DIRECTLY INCIDENTAL TO HIS BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND (IV) LOSS CLAIMED IS ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE-OFF OF ADV ANCES MADE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. II) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN A FACTUAL FIND ING THAT THE LOSS IN QUESTION DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE BUSINESS OPERATION S. HE OBSERVED THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED AT BANGALORE IN CONNECTION WITH PURCHASE OF TECHNOLOGY FROM SUNSOFT TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO PURCHASE OF MATERIAL OR FOR PROCESSING OF MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR EXPORT BUSINESS AND IS IN REVENUE FIELD AS NO CAPIT AL ASSET WAS ACQUIRED. AT PARA-4.3.4 THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD AS FOLL OWS:- 4.3.4 THEREFORE DUE TO THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIO N AND PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT LOSS INCURRED IS DIRECTLY REL ATED TO HIS BUSINESS OPERATION I FIND THAT EXCEPT IN CASE OF LOSS INCUR RED DUE TO LOAN GIVEN TO HIS EMPLOYEE OF ` 5 000 AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED FOR ` 42 894 REST OF THE LOSS IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE ACT BEING A GENUINE BUSINESS LOSS. IN THE CASE OF A.W. FIGGIS & CO. LTD. V/S CIT 254 ITR 63 (CAL.) THE H ONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT AMOUNT ADVANCED IN THE COURSE O F BUSINESS IF NOT RECOVERABLE DUE TO BREACH OF AGREEMENT BY THE DEBTO R AND THE LOAN ADVANCED WAS NOT LIKELY TO BE RECOVERED IN SPITE OF FILING OF A CIVIL SUIT IS ALLOWABLE AS BAD DEBT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S NAINITAL BANK LTD. 55 ITR 707 (SC) HAS HELD TH AT UNDER SECTION 28 THE TRADING LOSS OF A BUSINESS IS DEDUCTIBLE IN COM PUTING THE PROFITS EARNED BY A BUSINESS. HOWEVER EVERY LOSS IS NOT DE DUCTIBLE UNLESS IT IS INCURRED IN CARRYING OUT THE OPERATION OF THE BUSIN ESS AND IS INCIDENTAL TO THE OPERATION. WHETHER LOSS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS OR NOT IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE DECIDE D ON FACTS OF EACH CASE HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE OPERATION CARRIED ON AND THE NATURE OF RISK INVOLVED IN CARRYING THEM OUT. THE D EGREE OF THE RISK OR ITS FREQUENCY IS NOT MUCH RELEVANT BUT ITS NEXUS TO THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS IS MATERIAL. AGAIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMCHANDER SHIV NARAYAN V/S CIT 111 ITR 263 (SC) H AS HELD THAT MR. T. PITAMBER ITA NO.868/M/2010 ITA NO.869/M/2010 7 LOSS IS DEDUCTIBLE WHERE THERE IS A DIRECT AND PROX IMATE NEXUS BETWEEN THE OPERATION AND THE LOSS OR WHERE THE LOSS IS INC IDENTAL TO IT AS WITHOUT THE BUSINESS OPERATION AND DOING ALL THAT I S INCIDENTAL TO IT NO PROFIT CAN BE EARNED. III) WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE AFORESAID FINDI NGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN I.B.M. WORLD TRADE CORPORATION (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSES SEE ADVANCED MONEY TO A LANDLORD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY SHED AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTIAL PLANT FOR LEASING THEM TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LANDLORD BECAM E INSOLVENT MAKING THE AMOUNTS IRRECOVERABLE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION BY WAY OF BUSINESS LOSS. ON THE ASSUMPTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT LEGAL PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE LAUNCHED F OR RECOVERY OF ADVANCE SO AS TO CLAIM BUSINESS LOSS WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN A.W. FIGGIS & CO. (SUPRA) HE LD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE KNEW THAT FILING A SUIT WOULD NOT HELP RECOVERY OF AN AMOUNT BUT ONLY ADDS TO THE FINANCIAL EXPENDITURE TO THE ASSESSEE IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO FILE A CIVIL SUIT TO ENABLE ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM UNDER BU SINESS LOSS. IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT INSIST ON DEMONSTRA TIVE PROOF OF THE FACT WHICH MUST SATISFY THE TEST OF INFALLIBILITY. THE H ONEST JUDGMENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF MAKING WRITE-OFF SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE WEIGHTAGE. HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN JETHABHAI HIRJ I & JETHABHAI RAMDAS (SUPRA) REFERRED TO ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF DIVISION BE NCH OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS F OLLOWS:- WHEN A BUSINESSMAN WRITES OFF AN AMOUNT THERE IS P RIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THAT AMOUNT IS IRRECOVERABLE. UNDOUBT EDLY THE DEPARTMENT CAN REBUT THE PRIMA FACIE INFERENCE BY D RAWING ATTENTION TO CIRCUMSTANCES OR BY LEADING SOME EVIDENCE TO SUG GEST THAT THE POSITION TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT. IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER ON THE RECORD EXCEPT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WROTE OFF THIS AMOUNT IN THE YEAR OF ACCOU NT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE WE ARE ENTITLED TO PRESUME THAT TH E AMOUNT BECAME IRRECOVERABLE WHEN THE ASSESSEE WROTE IT OFF IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IV) THE TRADE ADVANCE IN QUESTION WAS GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN-OFF THE SAME IN ITS BO OKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE MR. T. PITAMBER ITA NO.868/M/2010 ITA NO.869/M/2010 8 YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO DEMONSTRATE THE FACT THAT THESE ADVANCES HAVE IN F ACT BECOME BAD CONSEQUENTLY WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIND INGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND HEREBY UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY REVENUE FAILS ON THIS ISSUE FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER ASSESSMENT. 11. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.7.2011 SD/- D.K. AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 22.7.2011 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A) MUMBAI CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR E BENCH ITAT MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI