ORDER SHEET ITAT 7 OF 2011 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II Versus M/S. VINSON BROTHERS (P) LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 11th May, 2015. For appellant : Mr.R.N.Bandyopadhyay,Advocate Mr.P.Dhudheria,Advocate For Respondent/assessee : Mr.R.K.Murarka,Advocate Mrs.Sutapa Roychowdhury,Advocate Court : appeal was presented in year 2010. Thereafter, no steps were taken until matter was listed suo motu by Court. Copy has been served.Mr.Murarka has appeared on behalf of assessee. appeal is directed against judgement and order dated 18th March, 2010 pertaining to assessment year 2003-2004. revenue/appellant has suggested following questions : (i) Whether on facts and circumstances of case Ld.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in upholding order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleting addition of accrued 2 interest amount of Rs.20,34,274/- without appreciating provision contained in section 5(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case Ld.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in Law in upholding order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleting disallowance of NPA for Rs.59,88,087/- treating same as allowable expenditure ? (iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case Ld.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in upholding order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Asppeal) allowing adjustment of speculation loss with dividend income i.e. income from other sources without appreciating fact that as per section 73(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Loss on speculation business can be set off only from income of speculation business ? (iv) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting disallowances on account of additional claim made by assessee company as Bad Debt written off for Rs.20,34,724/-? It would appear from comparison of question nos.(i) and (iv) that both of them relate to addition of sum of Rs.20,34,274/- on account of interest. It appears from findings recorded by CIT (Appeal) that aforesaid sum was actually credited by assessee during financial year 2000-01. Since money could not be recovered during relevant previous year aforesaid 3 sum was written off. dispute was sought to be raised as regards actual writing off of aforesaid amount. Both CIT (Appeal) and learned Tribunal have come to concurrent finding that sum was, in fact, written off by assessee. Once sum was written off there can be no further question of appeal being entertained with regard to those two questions. question nos.(i) and (iv), thus, are disposed of. In so far as question no.(iii) is concerned it appears that learned Tribunal has restored matter to file of assessing officer for further enquiry and for finding in accordance with law. We are told that exercise has been completed and thereafter matter once again is before learned Tribunal. In so far as question no.(ii) is concerned we find that on behalf of Revenue admission was made before learned Tribunal that point is covered in favour of assessee. But revenue made summersault and has now preferred appeal. Mr.Murarka with some justification submitted that this practice cannot be allowed. submission advanced by Mr.Murarka may have some substance but at same time if litigant is represented by inefficient lawyer it cannot be said that he does not have right to judgement in accordance with law. Therefore, question needs to be considered in accordance with law. 4 Since question no.(iii) is once again before learned Tribunal after matter has been examined by assessing officer, it will also be proper that Tribunal shall reconsider question no.(ii) in accordance with law. appeal is thus disposed of. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) ssaha AR(CR) Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-II v. M/s. Vinson Brothers (P) Ltd