1 23 ITXA 2765-09.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION K INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2765 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-6 .. Appellant Vs. M/s. Klass Equipment Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant Mr. Jitendra Jain a/w Mr. B.D. Damodhar i/b Kanga & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. Two questions of law are raised by the Revenue in this Appeal: (a)(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal are justified in law in upholding the order of the Learned CIT (A) allowing the claim of bad debts amounting to Rs.23,81,813/- even though the assessee had brought no material on record to prove that such debts were in the nature of bad debts. (ii) The Tribunal failed to appreciate that even under the amended provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, effective from 01.04.1989, deduction can be allowed only in respect of debts which are in the nature of bad debts as held by Gujarat High Court in the 2 23 ITXA 2765-09.doc case of Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 295 ITR 481 (Gujarat). b(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal are justified in law in upholding the order of learned CIT(A) deleting the additions of Rs.7,93,634/- made u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act relying on the Mumbai Third Member Bench of Tribunal’s decision in the case of ITO vs. Ahuja Graphic Machnery (P) Ltd. (2007), 111 TTJ (Mumbai) (TM) 445 and Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT, 261 ITR 501 even though both these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case? (ii) The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the amount of sundry creditors of Rs.7,93,634/- has been claimed as deduction by the assessee in earlier years and therefore, the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 2 As regards to the first question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question is answered against the Revenue in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC). Accordingly, the first question cannot be entertained. 3 As regards the second question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question is covered against the Revenue by the decision 3 23 ITXA 2765-09.doc of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sugali Sugar Works (P) Ltd. reported in 236 ITR 518 (SC). Accordingly, the second question also cannot be entertained. 4 Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)