9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of loss claimed by the assessee for the proprietary business of M/s. Venus Jewellers. 2. Treatment of the proprietary businesses of M/s. Venus Bros. and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers as a single business entity. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Loss Claimed by the Assessee for M/s. Venus Jewellers: The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 38,556 for the assessment year 1985-86, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO noted that the assessee did not carry on any trading activity during the said year, and the loss was due to expenses debited in the profit and loss account. The AO observed that the business license of M/s. Venus Jewellers was transferred to M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers, another proprietary concern of the assessee, and that the stock of M/s. Venus Jewellers was seized by the department, preventing any trading activity. The AO concluded that M/s. Venus Jewellers and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers were separate entities with separate books of account, and thus, disallowed the loss. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the stock seized in November 1980 was released in December 1984, and there were no purchases or sales during the period ending on 30-4-1984. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not conduct any business from the premises of M/s. Venus Jewellers at South Extension, and merely maintaining the premises did not constitute carrying on business. The assessee argued that the loss should be allowed as it was incurred due to rent, depreciation, and bank commission. The assessee also contended that the business was carried on from M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers, and both concerns should be treated as a single business due to common management and control. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and the orders of the tax authorities, concluded that no business activity was carried on from the premises of M/s. Venus Jewellers during the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had separate books of account for the two concerns and treated them as separate entities. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of the loss claimed by the assessee. 2. Treatment of M/s. Venus Bros. and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers as a Single Business: The assessee argued that the businesses of M/s. Venus Jewellers and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers should be treated as a single business due to common management and control. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of B. R. Ltd. v. V. P. Gupta, CIT, where it was held that in view of common management and control, the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss in one business and set it off against the profits of another business. The Tribunal, however, distinguished the facts of the present case from the Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the assessee was carrying on business from two separate concerns located at different places with separate accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the ratio of the Supreme Court decision could not be applied to the present case, and the two concerns should be treated as separate entities. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of the loss claimed by the assessee from M/s. Venus Jewellers and did not accept the argument that the two businesses should be treated as one. Conclusion: The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the loss claimed by the assessee for M/s. Venus Jewellers, holding that no business activity was carried on from the premises during the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the businesses of M/s. Venus Jewellers and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers should be treated as a single business due to common management and control, distinguishing the facts from the Supreme Court decision in B. R. Ltd. v. V. P. Gupta, CIT.
|
