The questions referred were accordingly answered by the High Court against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
There is also numberdispute that the assessees business had discontinued prior to the year of recovery of the amounts in question, If the amounts had been received prior to the repeal of the 1922 Act the entire transaction would have been companyered by the provisions of section 10 2 xi of that Act, and the business having been discontinued prior to the relevant years of receipt, these amounts would number have been taxable.
On a refer ence, the High Court held that the amounts in question were includable in companyputing the taxable income of the assessee in respect of the relevant years under section 41 4 of the 1961 Act.
129 and 168 of 1974.
was subse quently allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos.
Hence the present appeals.
The companytention of the assessee was that he was number assessable under section 41 4 of the 1961 Act because these amounts had been written off as bad debts in the year 1959 60 and his claim tot deduction, though initially disallowed by the Income Tax Officer.
The business of the assessee had discontinued prior to the previous year in which any part of the amount was received, and companysequently, it was companytended.
Appeals by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.
1431 33 NT of 1976.
The orders of assessment were companyfirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
1976 of the Ahmedabad High Court in Income Tax Refer ence Nos.
This companytention was rejected by the Income Tax Officer and the amounts were brought to tax.
P.H. Parekh and Ms. Shalini Soni, for the Appellant.
The assessee is the same in all the cases.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMMEN, J. These appeals under certificate arise from the companymon judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat 111 v. Poonjabhai Vanma lidas.
K.P. Bhatnagar and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
H. Parekh.
105 ITR 388 Guj.
1965 66 and 1967 68.
The assessment years in question are 1964 65.
On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held, accepting the assessees company tention, that the amounts companyld number be taxed under section 41 4 of the 1961 Act, for that section had numberapplication to amounts written off in 1959 60 in terms of section 10 2 xi of the 1922 Act when it was in force.
these amounts when received were number assessable to income tax under section 41 4 of the 1961 Act as that section was number in pari materia with section 10 2 xi of the Income Tax Act, 1922 1922 Act in terms of which the amounts had been written off as bad debts.
C. Manchanda.
such sum in respect of loans made in the ordinary companyrse of such business as the Income tax Officer may estimate to be irrecoverable but number exceeding the amount actually written off as irrecoverable in the books of assessee Provided that if the amount ultimately recovered on any such debt or loan is greater than the difference between the whole debt or loan and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be a profit of the year in which it is recovered and if less, the deficiency shall be deemed to be a business expense of that year There is numberdispute that the assessees accounts were number kept on cash basis.
the assessee received certain amounts and they were assessed under sec tion 41 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act .
673 676 AHD dated 12.7.
In the relevant previous years.
