M/s. Jayraj Estate Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-5, Baroda

ITA 3198/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62927 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJASR
• Keywords: Business income; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 ASST YEA R 2003-04. . 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 (ASST. YEA R: 2003-04) JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., ASHWAMEGH-II, SAMRAJYA COMPLEX, MUNJ MAHUDA ROAD, VADODARA (APPELLANT) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX,CIRCLE-5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR RACECOURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACJ 5505E APPELLANT BY : MR.S.N. SOPARKAR,SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR. N.M.DARJ I. RESPONDENT BY : MR.O.P. BHATEJA,SR.D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 17 - 7 -2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31- 8 -2012 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT (A)- V, BARODA DATED 17-9-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 003-04. ITA. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 ASST YEA R 2003-04. . 2 2. GROUND NOS.1,2 & 3 ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND THERE FORE DECIDED TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-1 1-2003 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.80,240/-.THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCR UTINY AND LATER ON THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) AND THE TOTAL INC OME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.16,40,954/-. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON PERUSING THE DETAILS, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIME D EXPENSES OF RS.15,60,534/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNT GIVEN. THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE, THE A. O. DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEV ED BY THE ACTION OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT (A ). 5. BEFORE CIT (A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE OW NED OFFICE PREMISES BEARING UNIT NOS.G-23 AND G-24 IN COMPLEX CALLED C ONCORDE. ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT ON 13-1-1998 WITH ID BI BANK FOR THE LEASE OF AFORESAID PROPERTY AT A MONTHLY LEASE RENT OF RS .83,666/-.THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED INTEREST FREE SECURITY OF RS.11,11,00 0/- FROM IDBI BANK. IDBI BANK ALSO ENTERED INTO A SERVICE CHARGE AGREEMENT O N 13-1-1998 WITH ANJALI CONSTRUCTION (SISTER CONCERN OF ASSESSEE) FO R THE SAME PREMISES. AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT, ANJALI CONSTRUCTION WAS TO RECEIVE RS.1,34,970/- PER MONTH AS SERVICE CHARGES FROM IDB I BANK. ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH IDBI BANK ON 19-2-19 98 FOR AVAILING TERM LOAN OF RS.78,70,000/- AGAINST THE MORTGAGE OF UNIT G-23 AND G-24. IDBI ITA. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 ASST YEA R 2003-04. . 3 WAS MAKING RECOVERY OF LOAN BY ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT OF LEASE RENT AND SERVICE CHARGE IN NOVEMBER, 2000 THE ASSESSEE PROP OSED TO SELL UNIT NO.G-23 AND G-24 TO SHRI HARESH SANGHVI (HUF ) BUT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 8-11-2001 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,0 2,08,300/-.AS PER THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THE SALE DEED THERE WAS AN UNDER STANDING TO GIVE ADJUSTMENT OF LOAN OUTSTANDING OF RS.58,97,300.78 P AYABLE TO IDBI BANK LTD., AS ON 30-11-2000 AND SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.1 3,11,000/- RECEIVED FROM IDBI BANK LTD., AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,02,08,300/-. HARESH SANGHVI (HUF) COULD PROVIDE COPY OF THE DEED TO IDBI IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER,2001. MEANWHILE IDBI CONTINUED TO MAKE RECOVERY BY ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF LEASE RENT AND SERVICE CHARGES. WHEN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE LOAN WAS SETTLED IN THE MONTH OF OC T.,2001, THERE WAS DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.15,60,534/- IN THE IDBI LOAN ACCOUNT WHICH WAS CARRIED FORWARD AS ON 1-4-2002. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF LEASE REN T AS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND SIMILARLY ANJALI CONSTRUCTION (SISTER CONCERN) IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME HAD OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED FROM IDBI AS INCOME. WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE A.O. HELD THAT SINCE THE OWNERSHIP OF UNIT G-23 AND G-24 OF CONCORDE PROJECT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SERVICE CHARGES PAID BY IDBI TO ANJALI CONSTRUCTION ARE IN THE NATURE OF PROPERTY INCOME AND ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. FOR A.Y. 2 001-02 AND 2002-03 WERE CONFIRMED BY CIT (A). AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A), ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER SECOND APPEAL BEFORE ITAT AND THUS THE ADDIT ION MADE BY A.O. ITA. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 ASST YEA R 2003-04. . 4 ATTAINED FINALITY AT ASSESSEES END. THE ASSESSEE T HUS URGED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.15,60,534/- THAT WAS NOT RECOVERABLE F ROM HARESH SANGHVI OR FROM IDBI BANK WAS THEREFORE WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND THUS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWABLE AS BAD DEBT OR TRADING LOSS. THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 5. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE APPELLANT HAD CLAI MED EXPENSES OF RS.15,60,534/- BEING DISCOUNT GIVEN TO SHRI H.N. SA NGHVI (HUF). HOWEVER, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE PROVIDED IN REGARD TO SUCH EXPENDITURE .SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS ALSO PROVIDED IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH PA YMENT, THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. ALTERNATE PLEAS WERE RAISED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE AS A BAD DEBT OR AS A BUSI NESS LOSS SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS WRITTEN OFF DURING THE ASSESSMENT YE AR AND ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 36(VII) R.W.S.36(2) ARE SATIS FIED. I HAVE EXAMINED THE PLEAS CAREFULLY. THE CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWABILIT Y OF BAD DEBTS INDICATED IN SECTION 36(2) (I) THAT THE DEBT IS IN RELATION TO ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND HAS FORMED PART OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN PREVI OUS YEAR OR EARLIER YEARS. (II) THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD (III) THAT THE DEBT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN WRITTEN OFF I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 5.1. THE AMOUNT SOUGHT TO BE CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT MU ST BE A TRADING DEBT IN THE FIRST PLACE. FOR A TRADING DEBT , THE RECEIPTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE EARLIER YEARS . HERE IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE RENT PAYMENTS RECEIVABLE AND ADJUSTED AGAI NST THE LOAN AMOUNT BY IDBI WERE DISCLOSED AS INCOME BY THE APPE LLANT. FURTHER, THE SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVABLE AND ADJUSTED AGAINST THE LOAN AMOUNT BY IDBI WERE DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF M/S. ANJALI CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, CLUBBED THE SERVICE CHA RGES IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND THIS ACTION WERE ALSO CONFIRME D BY CIT (A).THUS IT ITA. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 ASST YEA R 2003-04. . 5 IS ARGUED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE SHOWN AS INCOME FOR A.Y. 2002-03. I HAVE PONDERED OVER THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT. I T IS NOTICED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 T HE RENTAL INCOME OF RS.10,03,992/- AND RS.7,11,162/- RESPECTIVELY FROM IDBI WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT A S A BUSINESS RECEIPT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAID RECEIPTS ARE NOT BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND THE CORRESPONDING DEBT IF ANY, IS NOT A TRADING DEB T. 5.2. FURTHER, IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y. 2002-03 UNDER THE HEAD SECURED LOANS SCHEDULE C, THE IDBI LOAN BALANCE WAS SHOWN AS RS.15,60,534.57 OR THE IDBI WAS DEBTOR TO THAT EXTE NT. THE LOAN ACCOUNT WITH IDBI WAS CLOSED IN F.Y. 2002-03. AS ON 1-4-2002, H.N. SANGHVI (HUF) WAS SHOWN AS DEBTOR FOR RS.29,50,000/ -.EVEN IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED, H.N.SANGHVI (HUF) SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS DEBTOR BY RS.45,10,534/- (RS. 29,50,0 00 + RS.15,60,534/-) AS ON 1-4-2002. 5.3. FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF H.N. SANGHVI (HUF) IT IS NOTICED THAT TWO PAYMENTS OF RS.10 LACS EACH WERE RECEIVED AS LATE AS 26-7- 2002 AND THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31-3-2003 WAS RS .9,50,000/-. NO DETAILS OR EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEBT OF RS.15,60,534/- WAS DENIED BY H. N. SANGHVI (HUF) AN D AS TO HOW THE SAID DEBT OF RS.15,60,534/- HAS BECOME BAD. THE DEB TS OF H.N. SANGHVI (HUF) CANNOT BE TREATED AS BAD, MORE SO WHE N THERE WERE AMOUNTS FROM H. N. SANGHVI (HUF) WERE RECEIVED TILL AS LATE AS JULY, 2002. 5.4. FROM PERUSAL OF AFORESAID FACTS, IT IS CLEAR T HAT THERE IS NO TRADING DEBT OF RS.15,60,534/-. NEITHER THERE IS AN Y DETAIL NOR EVIDENCE THAT THE DEBT WAS STANDING IN THE NAME OF H.N. SANG HVI (HUF) HAS BECOME BAD. SO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ADMISSIBILIT Y OF THE DEBT OF RS.15,60,534/-. 6. THE THIRD ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SH ORT RECEIPT OF RS.15,60,534/- BE ALLOWED AS A TRADING LOSS BEING S HORT CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM H. N. SANGHVI (HUF) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE RECEIVABLE FROM H. N. SANGHVI (HUF) AS ON 1-4-2002 IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.29,50,000/- OUT OF WHICH R S.20 LAKHS WERE ITA. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 ASST YEA R 2003-04. . 6 RECEIVED IN JULY, 2002 AND THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS O R DETAILS OR CORRESPONDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT H. N. SANGHVI (HUF ) HAS DENIED THE DEBT OF RS.15,60,534/-. 6.1. THE LAST PLEADING OF THE APPELLANT THAT RS.15, 60,534/- HAS BEEN ASSESSED TWICE BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT AGAINST SALE PR OCEEDS AND ALSO UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY IS ALSO FALLACIOUS AS IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE RENT AND SERVICE CHARGES WERE REFLECTED IN THE RETU RNS OF TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES NAMELY, THE APPELLANT AND M/S. ANJALI CONS TRUCTION UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND IN FACT, THERE IS NO TRADING DEBT IN THE FIRST PLACE. SUCH WOULD ALWAYS BE THE MATTER IN ALL CASES OF DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS. MOREOVER, FOR REASONS DE TAILED AT PARA-5 ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE IS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIABLE. 6.2. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,60 ,534/- IS CONFIRMED. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ASSESSE E IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE CIT (A). HE THEREFORE, URGED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE A LLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS.15,60,534/- EITHER AS A TRADING LOSS OR IN THE A LTERNATE IT BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBTS. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THUS R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED OFFICE PREMISES BEARING NOS. G-23 AND G-24 IN BUILDING KNOWN AS CONCORDE. PURSUANT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT OF 13- 1-1998 WITH IDBI BANK FOR THE AFORESAID PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED I NTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.13,11,000/- AND WAS TO RECEIVE MONTH LY LEASE RENT OF ITA. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 ASST YEA R 2003-04. . 7 RS.83,666/-. SIMILARLY, ANJALI CONSTRUCTION (SISTER CONCERN OF ASSESSEE) WAS ALSO TO RECEIVE RS.1,34,970/- PER MONTH AS SERVICE CHARGES FOR THE SAME PREMISES. ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH I DBI BANK ON 19-2- 1998 FOR AVAILING TERM LOAN OF RS.78,70,000/- BY MO RTGAGE OF UNIT NO.G-23 AND G-24 OF CONCORDE. IDBI MADE THE RECOVERY OF LOA N BY ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT OF LEASE RENT PAYABLE TO ASSESSEE AND SERVIC E CHARGES PAYABLE TO ANJALI CONSTRUCTION. ASSESSEE ENTERED AN AGREEMENT ON 8-11-2001 WITH SHRI HARESH SANGHVI (HUF) TO SELL THE UNIT G-23 AND G-24 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,02,08,300/-. AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT SANGHVI (HUF) WAS TO SETTLE THE OUTSTANDING LOAN AS ON 30-1 1-2000 OF IDBI BANK OF RS 58,97,300.78 AND SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.13,11,00 0/-, AND THE NET PAYMENT WAS TO BE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. HARESH SANG HVI COULD PROVIDE FOR A COPY OF DEED TO IDBI IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 20 01. MEANWHILE IDBI CONTINUED TO MAKE RECOVERY BY ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMO UNT OF LEASE RENT AND SERVICE CHARGES. WHEN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE LOAN WAS SETTLED IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2001, THERE WAS DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.15,60, 534/- IN THE IDBI LOAN ACCOUNT WHICH WAS CARRIED FORWARD AS ON 1-4-2002. THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF LEASE RENT AS ITS INCOME IN A .Y. 2001-02 & 2002-03 AND ANJALI CONSTRUCTION (SISTER CONCERN) HAD OFFERE D THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED FROM IDBI AS INCOME IN .A.Y.2001-0 2 AND 2002-03. WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002 -03 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE A.O. HELD THAT SINCE THE OWNERSHIP OF UNIT G-23 AND G-24 BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SERVICE CHARGES PAID BY IDBI TO ANJALI CONSTRUCTION ARE IN THE NATURE OF PROPERTY INCOME A ND ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE MADE ADDITION O F THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY CIT ITA. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 ASST YEA R 2003-04. . 8 (A). ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER SECOND APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A). THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS .15,60,534/- THAT WAS NOT RECOVERABLE FROM HARESH SANGHVI OR FROM IDB I BANK WAS THEREFORE WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE I T IS ALLOWABLE AS BAD DEBT OR TRADING LOSS. 8. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT IN A.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 THE RENT RECEIVED FROM IDBI BANK HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE SERVICE CH ARGE RECEIVED BY ANJALI CONSTRUCTION WAS DISCLOSED BY IT IN ITS RETU RN OF INCOME. WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE THE A.O. CLUB BED THE SERVICE CHARGES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND THIS ACTION WA S CONFIRMED BY CIT (A) AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER APPEAL BEFORE ITAT AND THEREFORE THE ISSUE HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTR OVERT THE AFORESAID FACTS. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE LOSS B E ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT. TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS THE CONDITIONS STIP ULATED IN SECTION 36(VII) R.W.S. 36(2) ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIED. THE CONDI TIONS ARE AS UNDER:- (1) THE DEBT IS IN RELATION TO ORDINARY COURSE OF B USINESS AND HAS FORMED PART OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN PREVIOUS YEAR OR EARLIER YEARS. (2) THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. (3) THAT THE DEBT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS A FACT THAT THE R ECEIPTS OF RENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME WHICH MEANS THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE N OT FROM BUSINESS AND ITA. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 ASST YEA R 2003-04. . 9 THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS TRADING DEBT. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR A.Y. 2000-01 AND 2001-02, IT IS SEEN THA T THE RENTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. FURTHER, TH E SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED BY ANJALI CONSTRUCTION WAS ALSO TAXED IN T HE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 9. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT AS ON 1-4-2002, H.N.SANGHVI(HUF) WAS SHOWN AS DEBTOR FOR RS.29,50,000/- AND NOT A DE BTOR OF RS.45,10,534/- (RS.29,50,000 + 15,60,534) AND AGAINST WHICH THE AS SESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 20 LACS IN JULY, 2002.THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT/DET AIL OR CORRESPONDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT H. N. SANGHVI (HUF) HAS DENIED T HE DEBT OF RS.15,60,534/- AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D AS TRADING LOSS. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT (A) AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT (A).WE THUS, UPHOLD HIS ORDER. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, NOT ADJUDICATED UPON 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31- 8- 2012. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. ITA. NO. 3198/AHD/2009 ASST YEA R 2003-04. . 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) V, BARODA. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. 1.DATE OF DICTATION 22 - 8 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 30 / 8 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 30 - 8 - 2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 31 - 8 -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 31 - 8 -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 3 1 -8 -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER