Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Babubhi Ramanbhai Patel
[Citation -2022-LL-0426]

Citation 2022-LL-0426
Appellant Name Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1
Respondent Name Babubhi Ramanbhai Patel
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 26/04/2022
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags written off • fraudulent
Bot Summary: We have heard Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 14.08.2017 passed in Tax Appeal No. 499 of 2017 by which the additional question proposed by the Revenue, namely, Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance on account of bad debts written off amounting to Rs.6,65,78,426/- has not been framed by the High Court, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and even considering the findings recorded by the CIT A that the written off amount of Rs. 6.65,78,426/- as bad debts by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.05.26 the assessee was fraudulent and not genuine and since there is no 09:28:56 IST Reason: further discussion by the High Court in the impugned order on the aforesaid, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have 2 framed the aforesaid additional question so that the same could have been heard along with the other questions of law framed while admitting the appeal. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and without expressing anything on merits on the proposed additional question, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and we direct that the following question of law, namely, Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance on account of bad debts written off amounting to Rs.6,65,78,426/- be also dealt with and considered by the High Court along with the other questions of law in accordance with law and on its own merits. The present Appeal is allowed to extent as indicated in the signed order. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and even considering the findings recorded by the CIT A that the written off amount of Rs. 6.65,78,426/- as bad debts by the assessee was fraudulent and not genuine and since there is no further discussion by the High Court in the impugned order on the aforesaid, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have 5 framed the aforesaid additional question so that the same could have been heard along with the other questions of law framed while admitting the appeal. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.


1 CORRECTED IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3194 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.25470 of 2018) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Appellant(s) VERSUS BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL Respondent(s) ORDER Leave granted. We have heard Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Revenue and Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of assessee. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned order passed by Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 14.08.2017 passed in Tax Appeal No. 499 of 2017 by which additional question proposed by Revenue, namely, Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting disallowance on account of bad debts written off amounting to Rs.6,65,78,426/- has not been framed by High Court, Revenue has preferred present Appeal. Having heard learned counsel appearing for respective parties and even considering findings recorded by CIT that written off amount of Rs. 6.65,78,426/- as bad debts by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.05.26 assessee was fraudulent and not genuine and since there is no 09:28:56 IST Reason: further discussion by High Court in impugned order on aforesaid, we are of view that High Court ought to have 2 framed aforesaid additional question so that same could have been heard along with other questions of law framed while admitting appeal. In view of above and for reasons stated above and without expressing anything on merits on proposed additional question, we set aside impugned order passed by High Court and we direct that following question of law, namely, Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting disallowance on account of bad debts written off amounting to Rs.6,65,78,426/- be also dealt with and considered by High Court along with other questions of law in accordance with law and on its own merits. With this, present Appeal is allowed to aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. .......................... J. (M.R. SHAH) .......................... J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi; April 26, 2022. 3 CORRECTED ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.12 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25470/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-08-2017 in TA No. 499/2017 passed by High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Petitioner(s) VERSUS BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL Respondent(s) Date : 26-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR UPON hearing counsel Court made following O R D E R Leave granted. present Appeal is allowed to extent as indicated in signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (R. NATARAJAN) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER (Signed order is placed on file) 4 IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3194 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.25470 of 2018) PRINCIPAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Appellant(s) VERSUS BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted. We have heard Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Revenue and Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of assessee. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned order passed by Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 14.08.2017 passed in Tax Appeal No. 499 of 2017 by which additional question proposed by Revenue, namely, Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting disallowance on account of bad debts written off amounting to Rs.6,65,78,426/- has not been framed by High Court, Revenue has preferred present Appeal. Having heard learned counsel appearing for respective parties and even considering findings recorded by CIT that written off amount of Rs. 6.65,78,426/- as bad debts by assessee was fraudulent and not genuine and since there is no further discussion by High Court in impugned order on aforesaid, we are of view that High Court ought to have 5 framed aforesaid additional question so that same could have been heard along with other questions of law framed while admitting appeal. In view of above and for reasons stated above and without expressing anything on merits on proposed additional question, we set aside impugned order passed by High Court and we direct that following question of law, namely, Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting disallowance on account of bad debts written off amounting to Rs.6,65,78,426/- be also dealt with and considered by High Court along with other questions of law in accordance with law and on its own merits. With this, present Appeal is allowed to aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. ...... J. (M.R. SHAH) ......... J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi; April 26, 2022. 6 ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.12 SECTION III SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25470/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-08-2017 in TA No. 499/2017 passed by High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad) PRINCIPAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Petitioner(s) VERSUS BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL Respondent(s) Date : 26-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Leave granted. present Appeal is allowed to extent as indicated in signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (R. NATARAJAN) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER (Signed order is placed on file) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Babubhi Ramanbhai Patel
Report Error