SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was correct in allowing provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 20,00,461 as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee. " ( 2 ) THE relevant assessment year is 1974-75 for which the corresponding year of account was the previous year ended on March 31, 1974. ( 3 ) IT has been stated by the Tribunal in the statement of case that the assessee was Jardine Henderson Ltd. The returned income as per the revised return was Rs. 18,83,150. The total income as per the draft assessment order was determined at Rs. 41,58,070. As the addition exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, a copy of the draft assessment order was served on the assessee, which is a limited company, for submission of its objections, if any. The assessee-company submitted their objections on February 14, 1977. Thereafter, with the approval and instructions of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the Income-tax Officer made the assessment under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144b of the Act. ( 4 ) THE Income-tax Officer pointed out that in the profit and loss account for the year in question, the assessee-company claimed provision for doubtful debts in the amount of Rs. 20,00,461 relating to the East Indian Coal Co. Ltd. , Bhulanbararee Coal Co. Ltd. and amounts due from various coal companies and amounts written off on settlement or on account of miscellaneous bills. In support of the claim, the assessee filed a letter dated December 21, 1976, with details of the provision for Rs. 20,00,461. It was claimed before the Income-tax Officer that the compensation receivable by the two coal companies on nationalisation was inadequate and so the amount was claimed as deduction on account of doubtful debts. The Income-tax Officer held that there being no provision in the Act for allowance of a future liability, the provision for doubtful debts, not actually written off, could hot be allowed. The Income-tax Officer quoted in para 2 of his order, the instructions of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer held that there being no provision in the Act for allowance of a future liability, the provision for doubtful debts, not actually written off, could hot be allowed. The Income-tax Officer quoted in para 2 of his order, the instructions of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the provision for doubtful debts of Rs. 20,00,461 should be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income and allowed the claim of the assessee. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner; the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee had written off the doubtful debts in the profit and loss account as had been done in CIT/cept v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari [1953] 24 ITR 537 (Bom ). The Tribunal observed that it was evident that the assessee could know in the relevant accounting year that it could not recover the amount of Rs. 20,00,461. Hence, The Tribunal held that even if the claim of the assessee before the Commissioner of Payments is considered, the assessee had material to come to a finding that the amount could not be recovered from the companies concerned and so he was justified in writing off the amounts. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the assessee and held that the claim for doubtful debts of Rs. 20,00,461 was an allowable item. The Tribunal also held that when the Board's Instruction No. 370 dated January 13, 1972, came to a rending that there was no intention to reduce the scope of the earlier provisions contained in Section 10 (2) (xi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and it was considered that the provisions of Section 36 (1) (vii) also covered doubtful debts, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in ignoring the above provisions. ( 5 ) BASICALLY, the questions whether the debt has become bad or doubtful and whether the assessee is entitled to write it off are questions of fact There is no question of perversity in the finding of the Tribunal raised in this reference. The Tribunal has come to a finding that even if the claim of the assessee was considered before the Commissioner of Payments, the assessee could come to the conclusion that the amount could not be recovered from the companies concerned. The Tribunal decided to allow the claim of bad debt. The Tribunal has come to a finding that even if the claim of the assessee was considered before the Commissioner of Payments, the assessee could come to the conclusion that the amount could not be recovered from the companies concerned. The Tribunal decided to allow the claim of bad debt. ( 6 ) IN view of the finding of fact which has not been challenged, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. ( 7 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) NO paper book has been filed in this case even though the matter is pending since 1979. The paper book should have been filed within three months from the date of receipt of the statement of case. There is no explanation for the long delay. We have decided to dispose of the case without any paper book on the basis of the statement of case and other papers sent by the Tribunal.