Case Law Details
PCIT Vs Pukhraj S. Jain (Bombay High Court)
It is well settled through series of judgements that merely because a debt has not been repaid for over three years, would not automatically imply cessation of liability. Exhaustion of period of limitation may prevent filing of recovery proceedings in a Court of law, nevertheless it cannot be stated by itself that the liability to repay the amount had ceased. Going by this logic itself, the Assessing Officer, in our opinion, committed an error invoking Section 41(1) of the Act. Further the assessee had produced additional evidence on record before the Appellate Authority after following the procedure and pointed out that substantial portion of the debt was cleared in later assessment years.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The Revenue is in Appeal against the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10/11/2015. Following questions have been presented for our consideration :
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon. ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) by completely ignoring the contention of the revenue in respect of violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
