Taxc/105/2010 Of Deputy Commi. Of Income Tax,Bhilai v. M/S Univeb Sleepers Pvt.ltd

[/ H!Gi^_COURT_OF,.C9HATTiSGARHATBJ.LASPUR D.B.HON'BLESHRIDHIREND^HON'SLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAK^R. J J TaA_.C_ase.105of.20.IOAppetJantDeputy Commissjoner of Income Tax, BhilaJ, DistrictDurg (CG)VersysResDondentIVI/sUnivebSJeepersPvt.Ltd.,MIG-2,Padmanabhpur, Durg (CG) Present: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel forthe appeliant/revenue.Mr. Ashok Patil, counsel for the respondenVassessee. ORALJUDGMENT^lrOcio^rr2oToT P^L^M[eDd£aMi§h^.A Revenue's appeal under Sectjon 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (inshort "the Acf) against the impugned order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,Biiaspur Bench,BJJaspur (for brevlty "theTribunal")has beenadmitted for hearing on the foltowing substantia! question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstancas of the 'c-ase, tearnedITAT has erred in detetina the addition of Rs.42,99,605/- made bythe AO u/s 73 of the i.T. Act, djsaltowing the ioss specuiationtrading of shares claimed from the business sncome?" 02.Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee-company ssengaged in the business of manufacturing concrete sleepers and trading inshares. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2003-decSaring total jncome of Rs.1,60,30,340/-. The Assessjng Officer (in short"AO") made an addition of Rs.42,99,605/- by disaliowing set off claimed by theassessee as loss from trading in shares from the come of business andprofession. 03.The assessee went jn appeat agalnst the above addition and theCommlssioner, tncome Tax (Appeals) (in short CIT(A)} adowed appeal of theassessee by following the declsion ofthe jurisdjctional STAT, BJIaspur Bench,Bilaspur in the appetjant's own case for assessment year 2004-05 in ITANo.213/NAG/2007 and hefd that share trading loss is treated as normaibusiness loss and required to be sef otf against the buslness income. TheCommlssioner, tncome Tax (Appeals) (in short CIT(A)} adowed appeal of theassessee by following the declsion ofthe jurisdjctional STAT, BJIaspur Bench,Bilaspur in the appetjant's own case for assessment year 2004-05 in ITANo.213/NAG/2007 and hefd that share trading loss is treated as normaibusiness loss and required to be sef otf against the buslness income. The •%^1j ^w order of CIT(A) has been further confirmed by the Tribunal and the appealpreferred by the revenue has been dismissed by the impugned order. 04.Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue invoived inthis appeal Js identicaJ to the issue invotved jn Tax Case No.33/08 between thesame parties, with the only difference that CIT(A) has atlowed appeal of theassessee in this case by reiying upon the decision of the Tribunal, which isunder challenge in Tax Case No. 33/08.this appeal Js identicaJ to the issue invotved jn Tax Case No.33/08 between thesame parties, with the only difference that CIT(A) has atlowed appeal of theassessee in this case by reiying upon the decision of the Tribunal, which isunder challenge in Tax Case No. 33/08. 05.We have heard tearned counsel for the parties and perused theassessment order, order passed by CJT(A) as also the jmpugned order.assessment order, order passed by CJT(A) as also the jmpugned order. 06.We have already considered the substantial question of law arisjng inthls appeal in Tax Case (Income Tax Appeal) No.33 of 2008 between thesame parties, wherejn ft has been held that the main source of income of theassessee company was not from "interest on securities", "Jncome from houseproperty", "Capital gains", and (1ncome from other sources" and the company'sprinclpal business is aiso not that of granting of ioans and advances, and,therefore, case of the assessee squarely falls within the four corners ofExplanation to Section 73 of the Act. The loss suffered by the assessee Sn thebusiness of share trading cannot be set off against the incomie derived from itsmain business - construction of sleepers - and the same can be deemed tobe a speculation business by virtue of deeming provisions as per Explanationto Section 73 of the Act. 07.On the basis of aforesaid discussjons, the appeal succeeds and thesame is allowed. impugned order of the Tribunal as wei! as that of CST(A) areset aside, and order ofthe AO <s restored.same is allowed. impugned order of the Tribunal as wei! as that of CST(A) areset aside, and order ofthe AO <s restored.