2004 (8) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r for the year 1991-92 (previous year ended March 31, 1990) (sic) was completed as per order dated March 18, 1996 (exhibit P1). Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision (exhibit P2) under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said respondent did not consider the matter with reference to the contentions taken .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cond respondent instead of verifying the books of account while completing the assessment had proposed to disallow a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as loss on speculation along with a sum of Rs. 10,000 as expenditure and he had acted on the basis of the proposal staring that the petitioner had agreed to the said addition. Counsel submits that in fact the petitioner had to agree for the addition only for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... petitioner's case would not fall under such speculative transaction. In short the submission of counsel is that the petitioner did not conduct any speculation business at all. Shri George K. George, learned standing counsel, Government of India (Taxes), on the other hand, submits that there is no scope for a revision at all having regard to the fact that the petitioner had voluntarily agreed for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tated above. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order. I find from the impugned order that what is stated by standing counsel is justified for the petitioner was asked to produce separate details with regard to the loss claimed by the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner did not produce any such details. The stand of the petitioner is that accounts are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner had allowed the assessing authority to complete the assessment based on the proposal. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the first respondent had committed a serious error in dismissing the revision and I find no illegality in the order impugned in this writ petition. Hence, I find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Case laws, Decisions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X