IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 14.07.2009 
.
 Present:        Mr. P.N. Monga, Advocate  and Mr. Manu Monga, Advocate for the 
 appellant. 
 Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate for the respondent. 
.
 +  I.T.A. No.699/2009 
.
 The assessee herein had given advance to one M/s. R.B. Data Com. 
 Private Limited in the assessment year in question i.e. assessment year 2002-03. 
 The appellant claimed Rs.59,30,332 as bed debts which could not be recovered 
 from the aforesaid party, according to the assessee.  The Assessing Officer 
 disallowed the entire amount of Rs.59,30,332/- , which order was upheld by the 
 C.I.T. (Appeals) as well.  In the appeal, preferred by the assessee before the 
 I.T.A.T.  the contention of the assessee was that the amount at least to the 
 extent of  Rs.44,95,128/- should have been allowed as commission income in this 
 behalf was duly accounted for by the assessee in the earlier year and therefore 
 the assessee fulfilled the conditions of Section 36(i )(vii) and 36(2)(i).  This 
 contention of the assessee was accepted by the I.T.A.T. in the following manner: 
 ?We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material 
 available on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. 
 We find that deduction has been claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(vii) 
 of the Act but for that purpose, the conditions of section 36(2) are also to be 
 fulfilled and hence deduction can be allowed to the assessee only to the extent, 
 income was accounted for by the assessee which is Rs.44,95,128/- only.  Since, 
 the assessee has written off the amount in the present year, the assessee 
 deserves to succeed to the extent of Rs.44,95,128/- because to this extent, 
 income was accounted for by the assessee in the earlier years.  For the balance 
 amount, we feel that deduction cannot be allowed to the assessee because no 
 income was accounted for by the assessee in the present year or in the earlier 
 years and the assessee is not in the business of money lending.  We, therefore, 
 delete this disallowance to the extent of Rs.4495128/- for which the assessee 
 has complied with the provisions of Section 36(2) as well as the provisions of 
 section 36(1)(vii).  This ground is partly allowed? 
 The assessee has still come by way of present appeal and states 
 that entire amount of Rs.59,30,332/- should have been allowed.  We fail to 
 understand this grievance of the assessee, as noted above, since before the 
 I.T.A.T. a deduction to the extent of Rs.44,95,128/- was pressed which was 
 allowed in his favour and it was not justified for the assessee to claim entire 
 deduction.  Even otherwise, from the perusal of the aforesaid extract of the 
.
.
 orders of the I.T.A.T., it is clear that the assessed had accounted for an 
 amount of Rs.44,95,128/- only in the earlier years as commission income and 
 therefore, the I.T.A.T. has rightly allowed deduction only to this extent. 
 Having regard to the provisions of Sections 36(2)(iv) of the Act, 
 we do not find any substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the 
 same is accordingly dismissed. 
.
 A.K.SIKRI, J 
.
.
.
.
 VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J 
.
 July 14, 2009 
 Ne 
.
.
 # 7