Uikam Investment And Finance vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
2005 Latest Caselaw 251 Del

ORDER

1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. This appeal under Section 260A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act), is directed against the order of the Tribunal, dt. 12th July, 2004. In the impugned order, the Appellate Court held as under :

"In the present case, we are concerned with a factual issue as to whether there was remission of debt and as to whether there were facts and circumstances, which could suggest, that the creditor had remitted debt payable to the assessed. We have already held that there was no evidence on record to show that the debt or payment of interest was ever denied by the creditor."

2. It is not disputed before us that the assessed is maintaining a mercantile system of accountancy and also that it has been correctly noticed by the authority in the impugned order that the assessed is still showing the principal as outstanding in his books of account. These circumstances were taken as material pleas by the authority concerned while passing the impugned order.

3. In our opinion, the reliance has correctly been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) wherein Their Lordships have held that the conduct of the parties in treating the income in a particular manner is material evidence of the fact whether the income has accrued or not. It is primarily a question of fact whether the assessed himself treated the amount as recoverable or not. From the records, we must answer this question in the affirmative and accept the view taken by the Tribunal.

No substantial question of law arises in the present case. Appeal is dismissed.