COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. NAI DUNIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Revenue (CIT) under Section 260a of the IT Act against an order dt. 1st June, 1999, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No. 792/ind/1995. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law :

(2.) HEARD Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri S. C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Shri D. K. Chhabra, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) AT the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee/respondent placing reliance on Section 260a (4) of the Act and the decision of Supreme Court, reported in Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998 ]233 ITR203 (SC ), (1998 )8 SCC667 contended by raising an objection that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and secondly, the question framed supra, does not satisfy the requirement of Section 260a, i. e. , it is not a substantial question of law but it is a pure question of fact. In other words, the submission of learned Counsel for the assessee was that the question, whether a particular debt is bad debt and/or at what point of time it has become a bad debt in the books of account of assessee is a pure question of fact as has been held to be so by Supreme Court in the case of Travancore (supra) and hence, this Court should dismiss this appeal as involving no substantial question of law. Though, learned Counsel for Revenue has made attempt to urge in reply to sustain the appeal, we are inclined to uphold the contention of learned Counsel appearing for assessee as in our opinion, it has a force.