A consisted of two partners, Mohanlal Bagmal and Sashrnal Sobha Chand. Two minors, Ramniklal 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, B is the father of Seshmal, Ramaniklal and Lakshmichand and he was having sixteen percent 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 1 relevant to the account year Samvat 2008, the assessee claimed a deduction of c Rs. 2,68,385/· as bad debt due from the Bombay firm, incurred by that firm in the course of business transaC'tions. 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 D 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 confinned the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee there'\fter applied to the tribunal under s. 66 ( 1) of the Indian . Income-tax Act, 1922 to submit a statement of the case with the E 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 s. 66 (2), the tribunal submitted a statement of the case on the following question :
