High Court Of Gauhati
CIT vs. K.U. Ltd.
Section 28, 260A
Asst. Year 1994-95
D. Biswas & T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 22 of 2003
2nd August, 2006
Counsel Appeared :
K.P. Sasma & U. Bhuyan for the Revenue
JUDGMENT
By the court :
Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The appeal is admitted for hearing on the following question :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the decision of the Tribunal perverse in deciding the case against the Revenue ignoring the fact that the assessee had adopted the colourable device evidenced by his conduct of incurring heavy losses from year to year in share transaction to avoid the payment of due tax ?”
3. None appears for the respondent though the notice has been duly served as per office record.
4. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, challenging the order dt. 20th May, 2001, passed by the Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, in ITA No. 30/Gau/1998 relatable to the asst. yr. 1994-95. Shorn of factual details, we would like to straight way answer the question relying upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs. Janki Textiles & Industries Ltd. (2004) 186 CTR (Gau) 84 : (2003) 264 ITR 579 (Gau). An identical question was dealt with by this Court in the aforesaid case. In that judgment the assessees were investment companies and their main source of income was from interest. The assessee company during the assessment years showed loss on account of certain share transactions and claimed deduction on account of that loss from total income. The claim was repudiated by the AO. On appeal, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee suffered loss on account of share transactions and, therefore, was entitled to the deductions. The Revenue went on appeal and the learned Tribunal also concurred with the decision of the CIT. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the Revenue approached this Court and the Court on the factual matrix as indicated above was of the view that the decision of the CIT(A) as well as the learned Tribunal in allowing deduction on account of loss sustained due to share transactions is just and proper.
5. The factual matrix of the case at hand is also identical in the sense that the assessee in this appeal is also an investment company. During the asst. yr. 1994-95, the assessee disclosed an interest income of Rs. 10,91,708 and the said income was adjusted by adjusting against the loss in share trading amounting to Rs. 13,85,049. Both the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal rendered concurrent findings after evaluation of the materials on record. This Court in an appeal under s. 260A is not required to reappreciate the evidence on record and review the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) as well as the learned Tribunal on facts. Therefore, having regard to the decision in CIT vs. Janki Textiles & Industries Ltd. (supra), we are inclined to answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[Citation : 296 ITR 233]
