JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the assessee. The assessee suggested the following substantial questions stating them to be substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal : "1. Whether the hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not accepted the claim of bad debt, especially when necessary evidence in respect of the fact that the debt became bad has already been produced ? 2. Whether the hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not allowing the bad debt in view of the judgment of the hon'ble Calcutta High Court decided in the case of CIT v. Dunlop India Limited reported in [1994] 209 ITR 221, 227 the hon'ble court held that the entry of writing off is prima facie evidence of the debt having become bad but not a conclusive criterion and the onus rests on the assessee to establish that the debt has become bad in the relevant year ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the bad debt, especially when the assessee established that the debt had become bad in the relevant year ? 4. Whether the hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not accepting the bad debt especially when the books of account were in the custody of the Department, till the disposal of the even appeal by the hon'ble Tribunal and not returned to the appellant assessee and the return was submitted on the basis of photostat copy of the books as provided by the Department ?" 3. Learned counsel has urged that the claim for deduction of bad debt from the gross profits of the assessee has not been allowed primarily on the ground that the assessee has not written off the debt in his books of account for the financial year ending on March 31, 1999, for the relevant assessment year 1999-2000 which is a statutory condition required to be fulfilled before deduction on account of bad and doubtful debts in any assessment year can be claimed while computing taxable income for that year. 4. Having perused the assessment order, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order of the Tribunal, we find that this contention is not substantiated. 5. 4. Having perused the assessment order, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order of the Tribunal, we find that this contention is not substantiated. 5. The assessee contends that since books of accounts for the financial year ending on March 31, 1999, had been seized by the officers of the Income-tax Department in a survey and search conducted on the assessee's business premises in July, 2000, it was not physically possible for him to have complied with the statutory condition of writing off the bad debts in his books of account for the year ending on March 31, 1999, and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have sustained the claim of the assessee on the merits because the assessee has established that the debt amount claimed by the assessee Rs. 2,89,750 had actually become bad and recoverable during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1999- 2000 without insisting on fulfilment of a condition which was not possible to be complied with. 6. Perusal of the assessment order, and the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and of the Tribunal sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the aforesaid claim of the assessee shows that the contention of the assessee is not well founded. It is not in dispute that search took place on July 29, 1999, almost 4 months after the close of the financial year on March 31, 1999, and until then no entries of the aforesaid sum as bad debts had been made in the books of account. There is no denial of the fact that under clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 36 permits that the deduction of any amount of bad debts or part thereof is subject to provisions of sub-section (2) of section 36. According to said provision only such sum is to be allowed as deduction by way of bad and doubtful debts which is written off in the account of the assessee for the previous year. 7. Sub-section (2) of section 36 makes it abundantly clear that merely writing off any amount as a bad debt in the books of account irrecoverable does not ipso facto results in deducting the said sum while computing the taxable income in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. Sub-section (2) of section 36 makes it abundantly clear that merely writing off any amount as a bad debt in the books of account irrecoverable does not ipso facto results in deducting the said sum while computing the taxable income in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The requirement of sub-section (2) is to be established even in a case where a sum is written off in the books of account as an irrecoverable debt. The enquiry into the condition required under sub-section (2) is still required to be made but such enquiry is required to be made only when a debt is written off in the books of account. Therefore, it becomes a condition precedent before any claim for deduction on account of debt becoming bad is inquired into. In the absence of such entries made in the books of account, the process of examining its claim with reference to sub-section (2) of section 36 does not commence. 8. The assessee's contention that the writing off any sum as bad and doubtful debt as if it has become irrecoverable is not an entry recalling transaction, but is a necessary adjustment to find out the true result of the business after completion of the year and making of profit and loss account. In the facts and circumstances, even in such event, the claim was liable to be negated since the books of account were seized on July 29, 1999, that is to say four months after the close of the previous year and until that time no such entries have been made in the books of accounts when the books were in the possession of the assessee. On this ground also the assessee's claim has not been found tenable, which in the facts and circumstances, cannot be said to be unsustainable. 9. On the ipse dixit of the assessee, it cannot be assumed that until after the expiry of 4 months, the assessee had any cause for not making adjustment in the books of accounts, particularly in respect of bad debt where no further computation was required to be made but was merely a decision to be taken by the assessee himself whether the debt has become irrecoverable or not until March 31, 1999. 10. 10. Apart from the legal issue, the answer to which is clear from the provisions itself, the Assessing Officer as well as the appellate authority have examined the claim of the assessee that the debt has actually become irrecoverable during the previous assessment year 1999-2000 and have also held that the assessee has failed to prove that debts in question had actually become irrecoverable during the previous year in question. The material circumstances relied on in this connection are that the assessee only furnished a list of debts but the details of three years of such account have not been furnished because the same has been lying with the Assessing Officer. 11. These findings were affirmed by the Tribunal. The bad debts have been disallowed by considering the material on record by finding as a fact that the debt has not been recoverable during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question and this is a finding of fact and in that view of the matter other questions, even if held to be questions of law, become of academic importance, not affecting the result, it cannot be treated as substantial questions of law. Hence, this appeal cannot be entertained. 12. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. *******