Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: backdated agreements in General Capital And Holding Company ... vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), ... on 12 February, 2018Matching Fragments
dealing with the appellant company. Therefore, these lendings could not be said to be covered in the ordinary course of business.
3.8. The AO also observed that the loan agreement with Bhagaym Industries was dated 09.07.2009 (correctly 27.07.2009) while the agreement was shown to be executed on 6.6.2009. In other words when the non judicial stamp of Rs.100/- had been purchased only on 27.07.2009 then how couid this agreement be executed on 06.06.2009, it means this agreement has been backdated. Therefore the authenticity of the said agreement was in doubt. It has also been noticed that the appellant company never deposited the cheque obtained from Dolphin Metal India Ltd. nor any legal proceedings were initiated against both the parties despite being failed to recover even a single rupee out of the money paid to them. On the contrary the AO observed that Dolphin Metal has repaid the rolling charges to another party viz. Gopal Iron and Steel Company Gujarat Ltd. which has proved that the debt could not become bad at the time when appellant wrote off the amount claiming the same as irrecoverable as the claim in respect of the said party was found not genuine. The appellant has relied upon various decisions /judgments in his favour, but the same are not found relevant because the appellant is found not to be granted the loans and advances to the aforesaid two parties in its ordinary course of business as discussed in the preceding paras. Even, the appellant has not even proved that these advances were made to its business associates. For example in the case of Patnaik & Co. Ltd., the Hon'ble Court has decided the issue in view of the old provisions of section 28(i) & has allowed the revenue loss on the issue totally different from the facts of the appellant. Likewise in the case of DCIT Vs. Hindustan Mi Swaco Ltd., the issue involved was in respect of claim of bad debt u/s. 36(1 ](vii) of the I. T. Act r.w. 36(2) (i) of I. T. Act which has already been discussed in the appellant's case in the preceding paras of this order.