Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4 v. Suresh K. Jajoo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.321 OF 2017 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.337 OF 2017 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.360 OF 2017 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.361 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-4 .... Appellant versus Suresh K. Jajoo... Respondent ….... Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant.Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.Madhur Agrawal i/b. Mint & Confreres, Advocate for Respondent.Mr.Madhur Agrawal i/b. Mint & Confreres, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.DATE: 09[th] APRIL, 2019. P.C. : 1. These Appeals are filed by the revenue arise out of common background. We may record facts from Income Tax Appeal No.321/17. 2 / 3 26-ITXA-321-17-&-Ors.odt 2. The revenue has presented following question for ourconsideration; “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting thedisallowance made by the A.O. of STCG amounting toRs.6,87,44,080/- as Business Income?” 3. Under somewhat similar circumstances in case of the wife of the Respondent-Assessee in Income Tax AppealNo.338/17, we had dismissed the revenue’s Appeal in followingterms; “2. The Respondent Assessee is anindividual. The issue raises out of her return ofincome for the year 2006-07. She had offered thegain of Rs.5.60 Crores (rounded of) upon sale ofshares as short term capital gain. The AssessingOfficer however held that the same would give riseto her business income. CIT (Appeal) and tribunalheld in favour of the assessee mainly on the groundthat in the earlier assessment years the assessee had consistently shown the receipts of sale of share ascapital gain which the revenue had also accepted. 3. We do not find any error in view oftribunal. The tribunal had noted that in the earlieryears the assessee had suffered loss. Therefore in thecurrent year if the income was to be treated asbusiness income, capital loss of the earlier yearwould not be assessable against such income. Itappears that the Assessing Officer desired to taxincome as business income in the current year, inview of the change in tax rates, between short termcapital gain and business income, which in theearlier years was same. 4.In such circumstances, no question oflaw arises, the Appeal is dismissed.” 4. Without recording separate reasons, therefore, theseAppeals are dismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)