2011 (2) TMI 344 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowing the loss on account of trading in rice - Assessee required to give a separate trading account of purchase and sale of these commodities i.e. Rice, Wheat & Basmati and also to explain the reasons for loss in the said trading - Purchases of rice are not verifiable with reference to parties and also in the absence of purchase bills - The CIT(A) and the Tribunal had reversed the said finding without referring to any material relating to the identity of the sellers - Hence,the present appeal is allowed and the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are set aside - The matter is remitted to the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Addition of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of losses disallowed claimed in trading of rice.
3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleting the addition.
4. Whether the Tribunal appreciated the facts of the case correctly.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the assessment year 2001-02. The substantial questions of law raised included the Tribunal's decision to uphold the deletion of an addition of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed as losses in trading of rice and the alleged misleading contentions of the assessee.

2. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee regarding the loss on trading in rice, amounting to Rs.20,00,000/-, due to the failure of the assessee to establish the identity of the sellers. The assessing officer highlighted discrepancies in the submission of accounts and lack of evidence regarding the quality of rice purchased and sold, as well as the identity of parties involved in the transactions.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal overturned the assessing officer's findings without sufficient discussion or evidence regarding the identity of the sellers and the authenticity of the sales and purchase bills provided by the assessee. The orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were deemed flawed and unsustainable due to the lack of proper consideration of crucial aspects of the case.

4. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for further proceedings on a specified date.