2001 (2) TMI 274 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the claim of capital loss of Rs. 7,50,000 by the assessee should be allowed as a deduction for income tax purposes.
2. Whether the write off of a loan amounting to a capital loss falls under the head 'capital gains'.
3. Whether the write off of the loan in the books of the assessee amounts to a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of section 45 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1990-91 regarding the claim of capital loss of Rs. 7,50,000 by the assessee. The Revenue contended that the loss should have arisen on the transfer of a capital asset during the year, and as there was no such transfer, the claim should be disallowed. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the claim based on the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) regarding the irrecoverability of the loan. The Tribunal noted that the amount was written off in the earlier year and was not transferred in the present assessment year, leading to the conclusion that the claim for deduction should be disallowed.

2. The assessee claimed the amount of Rs. 7,50,000 as a capital loss under the head 'capital gains'. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, stating that the loss under 'capital gains' is allowable only upon the transfer of a capital asset as per section 45 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the claim based on the write off of the loan and the BIFR order. However, the Tribunal found that the write off did not constitute a transfer of the capital asset in the present assessment year, as the entry in the books of the debtor-company was not sufficient to establish the transfer by the assessee.

3. The Tribunal analyzed whether the write off of the loan in the books of the assessee amounted to a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of section 45 of the Income Tax Act. It was observed that even if the loan had become irrecoverable, the write off did not constitute a transfer of the loan. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to support the view that extinguishment of rights in a capital asset, such as a write off of a debt, does not qualify as a transfer under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 7,50,000 as a loss under the head 'capital gains', setting aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) and restoring that of the Assessing Officer.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues and the Tribunal's reasoning behind the decision on each issue, providing a detailed understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.