IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA No.329/2009  
 . 
 CIT                                   ..... Appellant through 
 Ms. P.L. Bansal with 
 Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal and 
 Ms.Anshul Sharma, Advs. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 SMT. BALA KAUL                        ..... Respondent through 
 None 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                      28.05.2009 
 . 
 A sum of Rupees ten crore was advanced by the Respondent/Assessee to the 
 stock brokers M/s. N.H. Securities for the purchase of shares. The Brokers 
 failed to purchase shares and have also not returned the sum of Rupees ten 
 crores. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for bad debts on the strength 
 of Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer further held 
 that there was no definitive demarcation in the portfolio with regard to whether 
 the shares were intended as investments or stock-in-trade. Despite this finding 
 the Assessing Officer allowed 100 per cent loss in respect of Infosys shares and 
 50 per cent loss in respect of shares of Satyam, aggregating Rupees 
 5,41,25,000/- as a business loss. The remaining Rupees 4,58,68,845/- was treated 
 as Capital Loss. The CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the past practice is not 
 the only decisive factor to determine whether shares were intended to be held as 
 investments or by way of stock-in-trade. On an appreciation of evidence placed 
 before him, the CIT(A) has concluded that  it is very clear that the advance was 
 made on trading account. .The disallowance of Rupees 4,58,68,845/- is therefore 
 deleted . The ITAT has concurred with this conclusion. 
 K. Ravindranathan Nair  vs- CIT, [2001] 247 ITR 178(SC): 2001(1) SCC 135 
 lays down that the Tribunal is the final fact finding Authority and its decision 
 is alterable only if it is perverse [See CIT  vs- Mukundray  K. Shah,  [2007] 
 290 ITR 433(SC)], CIT  vs- P. Mohankala, (2007) 6 SCC 21 and T. Ashok Pai  vs- 
 CIT, Bangalore, (2007) 7 SCC 162 which precedents prescribe that only palpably 
 perverse conclusions pertaining to the factual matrix should be interfered with 
 by the High Court. 
 The concurrent findings of the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT are not, in our 
 opinion, perverse. Hence, we find no reason to delve further into their 
 correctness. 
 No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Appeal is 
 dismissed. 
 VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 
 May 28, 2009 
 Tp 
 .