1999 (12) TMI 110 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Applicability of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Scope of adjustments permissible u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.

Summary:

Adjustment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1)(a):
The appellant filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 7,82,353 under "profits and gains of business or profession." The Assessing Officer, while processing the return u/s 143(1)(a), noticed a loss of Rs. 1,60,33,083 on share transactions and treated it as a speculation loss as per Explanation to Section 73. Consequently, the loss was disallowed for set-off against business profits, leading to an adjustment u/s 143(1)(a).

Applicability of Explanation to Section 73:
The appellant contended that the loss arose mainly from the revaluation of closing stock of shares, not from purchase and sale, and thus should not be treated as speculation loss. The CIT(Appeals) rejected this argument, noting that the appellant was a dealer in shares and the entire loss, including revaluation, was integral to computing profit or loss from share trading. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the entire loss on share transactions, including valuation of closing stock, is a speculation loss within the meaning of Explanation to Section 73.

Scope of Adjustments u/s 143(1)(a):
The appellant argued that adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) are limited to specified items and should not include debatable issues. The Tribunal agreed that adjustments should be limited to prima facie errors evident from the return and accompanying documents. However, it concluded that the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was justified as the facts clearly indicated that the loss was a speculation loss, which did not involve prolonged debate or arguments.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals), holding that the entire loss from share transactions was a speculation loss and the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1)(a) was justified. The appeal was dismissed.