9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of IT Act, 1961 and in not following provisions of law. (ii) in directing the assessment order dated 25/3/2011 passed u/s 143(3) to be prejudicial to interest of revenue and not following provisions of law. 2. In holding Loss incurred amounting to Rs. 18,31,596/- to be "Speculative Loss" and in not appreciating facts already visited and perused by ld A.O. during course of assessment proceedings and not following provisions of law." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Laxman Das Bansal & Sons, Dholpur and carrying on business of purchase and sell of grain and other kind of agricultural merchandise for past many years. The assessee has filed original return of income declaring total income of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngaged in the business of sale and purchase of grains and a sum of Rs. 18,31,596/- was debited in P&L account against NCDEX loss. You were not a member of NCDEX as no account statement from NCDEX was produced so the loss claimed was not tenable. As physical delivery of commodities was not received by you so the whole transaction would fall within the purview of speculative loss, which cannot be allowed against normal profit from business income." The assessee filed a reply on 10/3/2011 stating as under:- "Sir, your honour has issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the IT Act on the ground that the Ld. A.O. has allowed commodity exchange loss of Rs. 1831596/- from normal profit of business income which is erroneous and prejudicial to the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the books of account for the said assessment year were audited by the qualified chartered accounts firm. Sir, neither the Ld. Assessing Officer nor the chartered accountant pointed out any mistake in the books of account and vouchers for the assessment year under consideration. Sir, the Ld. Assessing Officer completed assessment after making necessary enquiries on this issue and after satisfied on this issue the Ld. Assessing Officer accepted genuine loss of Rs. 1831596/- as claimed by the assessee. Sir, we further submit that the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of the revenue. The Ld. A.O. passes assessment order after making due relevant enquiries and keeping in view the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eat the said loss as speculative loss and complete the assessment accordingly." 4. The ld AR of the assessee before us has submitted that the assessee has submitted all the records before the ld Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings in response to question No. 18 of the questionnaire and has submitted that the NCDEX loss is not speculative loss but is a business loss and occurred on account of hedging transactions and therefore, the order passed by the ld Assessing Officer in the original proceedings should not have been interfered by the ld. Commissioner after passing the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the ld CIT DR has submitted that the order passed by the ld Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the Income-tax Officer passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the Income-tax Officer failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous. It appears that the resolution passed by the board of the appellant-company was not placed before the Assessing Officer. Thus, there was no material to support the claim of the appellant that the said amount represented compensation for loss of agricultural income. He accepted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170 (SC) has held as under:- 21. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where two views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from. However, the above is not the situation in the present case in view of the reasons stated by the learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
