Judgment

HEGDE, J.: The appellant firm (which will hereinafter be referred to as the "assessee") carried on business In drugs, chemicals, mercury, camphor and art silk yarn as also in money-lending, over a number of years. The accounting year with which we are concerned in this appeal is Samvat year 2008 commencing from October 31. 1951 and ending on October, 18, 1952. The firm consisted of two partners, Mohanlal Bagmal and Seshmal Sobhachand Two minors, Ramaniklal Sobhachand and Lakshmichand Sobhachand were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The assessee had dealings for several years with a firm known as "Bhojaji Sobhachand" (to be hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Firm) Sobhachand Amarchand, a partner of the Bombay firm, is the father of Seshmal, Ramaniklal and Lakshmichand and he was having sixteen per cent share in the Bombay firm. That firm became insolvent in April 1952. The Bombay firm owed certain amount to the assessee. In the assessment of income-tax of the appellant for the assessment year 1952-53, relevant to the accounting year Samvat 2008, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,68,385 as bad debt due from the Bombay firm, incurred by that firm in the course of business transactions. The Income-tax Officer disallowed that claim holding that "these transactions were mere accommodations which can have no bearing to the regular business carried on by the assessee. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer. He held that the debt did not arise in the course of the assessee s business as Chemists and Druggists nor in the course of their money-lending business. On a further appeal taken by the assessee to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee thereafter applied to the Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to submit a statement of the case with the question "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the disallowance of the bad debt of Rs. 2,68,385/-is right in law" to the High Court of Madras for its opinion. The Tribunal rejected that application but pursuant to an order of the High Court under Section 66 (2), the Tribunal submitted a statement of the case on the following question :

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the debt of Rs. 2,68,385/- was not one incurred in the course of money-lending business of the assessee".

2. The High Court opined that the debt in question was not a bad and doubtful debt in the assessee s money lending business nor a debt representing loss sustained in the other business. The question referred was therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Thereafter the present appeal was brought after obtaining special leave from this Court. At the hearing of the appeal this Court found that the Tribunal s order was very brief and that it gave no reasons in support of its conclusions. It also found that the statement submitted by the tribunal was inadequate. This Court took the view that the question framed at the instance of the High Court did not bring out the real question arising for decision. It accordingly reframed the question as follows:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 2,68,385/- written off by the assessee in their books of accounts as irrecoverable?"

By its order dated July 29, 1969 this Court called upon the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of case on the reframed question. The tribunal accordingly submitted a fresh statement of the case on the question referred But that statement merely catalogued the arguments advanced at the bar. The tribunal did not give any findings on the points arising for decision. Hence by its order dated April 7, 1970, this Court directed the tribunal to submit a further statement : The tribunal has acco