: 1 : IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1000 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO.1000 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO.1000 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, . Mumbai ...Appellant V/s. Rajendra Y. Shah ...Respondent Mr.R.G. Bhat, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr.Ajay R. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V. A.V. A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. NIRGUDE, JJ. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 10TH JULY, 2008. : 10TH JULY, 2008. : 10TH JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. The Appellant-Revenue is seeking to raise the following two substantial questions of law :- (a). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in holding that it is not obligatory on the part of the assessee to prove that the debt written off by him is indeed a bad debt for the purpose of allowance u/s.36(1)(vii)? : 2 : (b). On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in relying on the judgement of Special Bench of ITAT in Oman International Bank in allowing the bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) inspite of the fact that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions laid down u/s.36(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961? 3. We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal dated 21st September, 2006. The same pertains to the assessment year 1992-93. Specially for the reasons stated in paragraph No.3 of the judgment of the Tribunal, there is no substantial question of law involved in the above Appeal. The Appeal is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]