The timing of events and the applicability of specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were central to the court's decision.

D.N. Patel, J

1) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench Ranchi, camp at Jamshedpur in Income Tax Appeal No.355/Pat/96 & 138-140/Pat/05 order dated 14th December, 2005.

2) Counsel for the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case the ITAT are justified in allowing the insurance claim written off by the assesse, even though it related to an earlier year and not the assessment year in question as also since the claim was related to the loss of a capital asset?

2) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case the ITAT are justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in restricting the additions made u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 20% of the cash purchases in excess of Rs.10,000/-, by taking recourse to a prospective amendment made in Section 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1916 w.e.f. 01/04/1996?”

3) Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-assessee had declared total loss of Rs.15,03,098/-in the return of Income filed on 29th of October, 1993 for the assessment year 1993-94. Thereafter, notices were issued by the appellant upon the assessee; statement of P.N. Malhotra and other persons were also recorded on oath under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, assessment order was passed by the A.O. on 26.09.1995 in which there were two major additions because of disallowance of insurance claim written off which was amounting to Rs.1,17,775.00. This insurance claim which was written off for the assessment year 1993-94 for non-payment of the insurance amount for the theft committed at the premises of the assessee on 10th September, 1989 and second important addition was of Rs.14,58,354/-because of cash transaction which was in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These cash transactions were on 175 occasions. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that against the order passed by the A.O., appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. So far as cash transactions are concerned and so far as insurance amount is concerned, the same was decided in favour of the Department and to that extent, the appeal was not allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order on 20th March, 1996 against which an appeal was preferred. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), both the assessee as well as the appellant preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, Camp at Jamshedpur. Assessee's Income Tax Appeal No. is 355/Pat/96 which was pertaining to insurance claim which was written off by the assessee in the assessment year 1993-94. Department's appeal is bearing No.ITA/393/Pat/96 mainly for the reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed against the restriction put by the Commissioner (Appeals) upto 20% of the total cash transactions. ITAT vide order dated 14th December, 2005 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the so-called theft was committed at the premises of the assessee on 10th September, 1989 for which insurance amount was claimed which was also rejected by the insurance company in the very next year. This amount was written off by the assessee in the assessment year 1993-94 which is not permissible. In the year 1993-94, no theft was committed at all, nor the insurance claim was denied by the insurance company in the year 1993-94 and, hence, dis-allowance of insurance claim written off as per the decision of the A.O. as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) was absolutely true and correct. The main reason for dis-allowance of the insurance claim written off was that the machinery parts, trolley machines, etc were stolen but they were not the