The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Reliance Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 781 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4..Appellantversus Reliance Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. ..Respondent -------- Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Adv. With Mrs. Padma Divakar for the Appellant Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Adv with B.G.Yewale i/b Rajesh Shah & Co. for the Respondent. ............. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 21[st] January, 2013 P.C. : In this appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2003-04, the following question of law has been proposed for our consideration. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in allowing the loss of Rs.99,13,122/- on account of bad delivery of shares by holding that the assessee has furnished complete details of loss without appreciating the fact that the assessee being only a middle man earning brokerage, had gone ahead and taken up the liability of the entire transaction? 2 The respondent-assessee is share broker, engaged in the business of trading in shares. For the assessment year 2003-04, the respondent-assessee claimed loss on account of dealing in securities amounting to Rs.99.13 lacs due to bad delivery and also furnished details in support thereof. However, the Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.01.2006 disallowed the loss on the ground that the respondent-assessee had failed to submit its claim script wise/delivery wise resulting in failure to ascertain the exact loss. Consequently, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.99.13 lacs to the income of the respondent-assessee. 3On appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted he additions and further appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the ITAT. 4The finding of fat recorded by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT is that during the course of hearing before the assessing officer, the SNC assessee had furnished five files which contained the requisite particulars. It is not in dispute that infact the assessee had furnished five files during the course of hearing. It is not the case of the revenue that the said filed did not contain the requisite particulars. 5In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. 6Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)