2014 (4) TMI 1114 - HC - Income Tax

Proof of loss - Held that - The insistence on actual proof considering the nature of the business and the reasonableness of the claim made by the Assessee was improper. No such insistence would have been there considering the claim made by the Assessee. Further, the Tribunal found that this is not a case of lack of proof of the loss. In such circumstances, a pure finding of fact does not raise any substantial question of law. The view taken is a possible view in a given facts and circumstances of the Assessee s case.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal challenging order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment year 1995-1996.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Common Order for Appeals of Revenue and Assessee:
The High Court addressed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1995-1996. The Tribunal's common order for the appeals of both the revenue and the assessee was under scrutiny. The Tribunal's approach in the current order was noted to be consistent with its actions in the previous assessment year, as highlighted in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the order. The High Court referred to a previous case where the Income Tax Appeal No.807/MDS/1999 was upheld by the Tribunal, and a subsequent challenge to this decision in Income Tax Appeal No.51 of 2011 was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Court on 20th November, 2012. The High Court concluded that the questions raised in the present appeal were not substantial given the precedent set by the Division Bench judgment.

2. Treatment of Expenses as Revenue in Nature:
The High Court further examined the treatment of expenses related to the HRC Division as revenue in nature. It was determined that this issue was incidental to the main question raised in the appeal and was already addressed in the Division Bench's order dated 20th November, 2012. The Court found that the controversy surrounding this issue was adequately covered by the previous judgment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that no substantial question of law was raised. The High Court, in line with the Division Bench's decision, dismissed the appeal accordingly.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1995-1996, as it was found that the questions raised did not constitute substantial questions of law and were already addressed in a previous Division Bench judgment. The treatment of expenses related to the HRC Division as revenue in nature was deemed incidental and covered by the previous decision, leading to the ultimate dismissal of the appeal.