SATISH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the assessee against the order dt. Tribunal") in ITA No. 395/Chd/2000, for the asst. yr. 1990 -91.

(2.) THIS appeal was admitted for determination of the following substantial question of law : "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law by not allowing the deduction of Rs. 3,50,000 under s. 28 as business loss or under s. 36 as bad debt against the said amount added as income under s. 69 which amount was neither received back nor goods against that amount were received by the appellant -

(3.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that Satish Kumar, assessee, had been earning Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 24,000 per year from the business of arranging trucks for carrying of coal to the destination of the purchasing parties and also labour for loading and unloading of the coal besides supervising that process. It came to the notice of the Department that the assessee had remitted three demand drafts made from the SBI to one Krishan Kumar Sharma. An enquiry was made from the assessee who initially denied that he knew Krishan Kumar Sharma but later on when his Barka Khana (Bihar) and also stated that the money belonged to the said Krishan Kumar. The AO, thus completed the original assessment at Rs. 3,80,500 and made an addition for unexplained investment of Rs. 3,50,000 for the purchase of drafts from the bank. Being aggrieved thereby the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income -tax remitted the matter back to the AO to examine de novo after affording proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee. 1999, and treated the sum of Rs. 3,50,000 to be the income of the assessee, vide fresh assessment order dated Annexure A. 5. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and raised submissions with full might but the CIT(A) agreed with 6. The appellant still did not stay back and carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. The submissions raised on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal also did not yield any result in favour of the assessee and 7. The assessee thereafter moved a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the Act pleading that the Tribunal had ignored from consideration ground No. 4(b) taken by him and did not adjudicate upon the same. The said ground reads thus :