The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Varren Financial Services Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.569 of 2009 (O&M)Date of decision: 13.11.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/s Varren Financial Services Ltd. -----Appellant -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGHHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counselfor the revenue.-----for the revenue.----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred by revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order dated 25.3.2009 of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’ in I.T.A. No.763/Chd/2008 for theassessment year 1998-99, proposing to raise followingsubstantial questions of law:- “(i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in taking the rate ofRs.88 per share i.e. the minimum at which thesaid shares were traded on that day, ignoringthe fact that the said shares had been traded atthe highest rate of Rs.92.90 per share and thatcase, the ITAT was justified in taking the rate ofRs.88 per share i.e. the minimum at which thesaid shares were traded on that day, ignoringthe fact that the said shares had been traded atthe highest rate of Rs.92.90 per share and that the assessee had failed to substantiate the rateat which the shares were actually traded, whichfact was in its exclusive knowledge. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in not giving thebenefit of the provisions of Section 114 of theIndian Evidence Act to the Revenue by applyingthe highest rate at which the impugned shareshad been traded on that day. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in not disposing of,by passing a speaking order, the specific groundtaken before it by the Revenue, questioning thefailure of CIT(A) to invoke the provisions ofSection 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and innot applying the highest rate at which theimpugned shares had been traded on that day.” 2. The assessee made claim for business loss andspeculation loss in the business of shares but the said claim wasturned down by the Assessing Officer by making best judgmentassessment, in absence of books of account. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed relief to the assessee by holding that rate pershare should have been taken to be Rs.88/-, as against the rateof Rs.92.90 per share, assessed by the Assessing Officer. TheTribunal upheld the view of the CIT(A) by giving reasons. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal should have assessed the rate atRs.92.90 per share. 4. We find that the Tribunal has given reasons foraccepting the view of CIT(A). Relevant observations of theTribunal are as under:- “........Though, there is a force in the question to theeffect that when the rate was between Rs.88/- toRs.99.90 per share, then why the assessee sold atthe lower rate, still, we are in agreement with theconclusion drawn in the impugned order in taking theactual sale of shares @ Rs.88/- per share which wasthe lowest quoted rate prevailing in the stock marketand no sale brokerage was paid by the appellant. Inview of these facts, we have not found any infirmity inthe impugned order, consequently upheld.” 5. The matter is clearly in the realm of appreciation ofevidence. No substantial question of law arises.6. The appeal is dismissed.evidence. No substantial question of law arises.6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 13, 2009ashwani ( GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE