2013 (7) TMI 1012 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against addition of speculation loss by AO and its deletion by CIT(A); Validity of sustaining the reopening of assessment by CIT(A).

Issue 1: Addition of Speculation Loss

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,95,13,114/- made by the AO on account of speculation loss. The AO found discrepancies in the opening stock of shares for the year under consideration, leading to the computation of speculation loss. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition citing the assessee's correct bifurcation of opening stock between shares and mutual funds, in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's treatment of income from mutual funds and shares as per the Supreme Court's decision was justified, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Validity of Reopening of Assessment

The assessee challenged the validity of sustaining the reopening of the assessment by the CIT(A). The reassessment was done on three grounds, including the turnover of Mumbai unit, opening stock of shares, and expenses allocated to speculation income. The Tribunal observed that except for the expenses allocated to speculative business, the assessee had been redressed for the issues arising from the reassessment. Regarding the expenses, the assessee had admitted the oversight during reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal deemed further adjudication on this ground as purely academic and unnecessary. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals, upholding the decisions made.

Judgment Summary:

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai heard cross-appeals by the Revenue and the Assessee against the CIT(A)'s order for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The Revenue's appeal regarding the addition of speculation loss was dismissed as the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was upheld based on the correct bifurcation of opening stock by the assessee. The assessee's challenge against the reopening of assessment was also dismissed, except for a minor issue regarding expenses, which was deemed academic. Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal.