COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS DAYACHAND HARDIAL
1991 P T D 255
[Punjab and Haryana High Court (India)]
Before Gokal Chand Mital and S.S. Sodhi, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
versus
DAYACHAND HARDIAL
Income-tax Reference No. 136 of 1979, decided on 07/11/1988.
Income-tax---
----Business loss---Bad debt ---Assessee acting as selling agent of D---As per terms of agreement between assessee and D, payment for goods of D sold by assessee was its responsibility ---Assessee selling goods of D on credit to H--Debit balance of H in books of assessee claimed as bad debt---Amount debited to assessee's account in books of D on account of His an admissible deduction.
The assessee-firm, which acted as selling agents of D, sold goods on credit to one H. According to the copy of the account of H in the books of the assessee-firm filed before the Income-tax Officer at the end of the accounting, year on June 30, 1972, there was a debit balance of Rs. 51,186 and on June 30, 1975 the debit balance stood at Rs. 38,686. The assessee claimed this amount as a bad debt for the assessment year 1976-77. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal, however, allowed the claim of the assessee treating it as a business loss or alternatively as business expenditure. On a reference:
Held, that, according to the terms of the agreement between the assessee-firm and D, payment for the goods of D sold by the assessee was the responsibility of the assessee and, therefore, when H did not pay the amount to D, the liability fell upon the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 38,686 debited to the assessee's account in the books of D during the relevant period, on account of the amount not being paid by one of its customers, H, was an admissible deduction from the business income of the assessee.
L.K. Sood for the Commissioner.
Nemo for the Assessee.
JUDGMENT
S.S. SODHI, J.--The matter here concerns the writing off of an unpaid debt.
The assessee-firm, Daya Chand Hardial, Amritsar, as selling agents of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., sold goods on credit to Hari Ram Bhagat Ram. According to the copy of the account of this party in the books of the assessee-firm filed before the Income-tax Officer, at the end of the accounting year on June 30, 1972, there was a debit balance of Rs. 51,186. During the accounting period 1972-73, Hari-Ram Bhagat Ram made no purchases from the assessee-firm nor did they pay any amount to it. The balance, accordingly, remained the same, that is, a debit balance of Rs. 51,186. In the next accounting year 1973-74, Rs. 10,000 were paid by cheque on May 1, 1974, with the result that on June 30, 1974, the debit balance came down to Rs. 41,186. Another amount of Rs.2,500 was paid on December 7, 1974, that is, during the accounting year 1974-75 which brought down this debit balance to Rs. 38,686 and this is where the matter stood on June 30, 1975, when the assessee-firm claimed this amount as a bad debt for the assessment year 1976-77.
The claim of the assessee-firm to have the said amount of Rs. 38,686 treated as a bad debt in the assessment year 1976-77 was turned down by the order of the Income-tax Officer of November ah. 1976. The appeal against it was also dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on March 19, 1977. The Tribunal, however, by its order of October 30, 1978, allowed the claim treating it as a business loss or alternatively as business expenditure.
The following question of law arose for decision:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the sum of Rs. 38,686 debited to the assessee's account in the books of D.C.M. Wholesale Shop during the period under consideration on account of the amount not paid by one of its customers, Hari Ram Bhagat Ram, by virtue of clause 12(b) of the selling agency agreement between them is an admissible deduction from the business income of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77?"
The view taken by the Tribunal is quite unexceptionable. According to the terms of the agreement governing the business relationship of the assessee-firm and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., payment for the goods of the company sold by the assessee-firm was the responsibility of the assessee and, therefore, when Hari Ram Bhagat Ram did not pay back the said amount, this liability fell upon the assessee. The business of the assessee being that of selling of cloth of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., the Tribunal rightly treated this amount to be a business loss or alternatively as business expenditure for earning commission income.
The reference is, accordingly, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Z.S./819/TOrder accordingly.