9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... later put forward before the revisional authority is that the said agreement was on account of the threat of prosecution steps from the second respondent - Such a contention cannot be accepted when the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the assessment order passed, had got a right of appeal before the first appellate authority and before the Tribunal apart from an appeal before this court – Thus, it cannot be said that the first respondent had committed a serious error in dismissing the revision - - - - - Dated:- 6-8-2004 - Judge(s) : G. SIVARAJAN. JUDGMENT G. Sivarajan. - The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax on the file of the second respondent. The assessment of the petitioner for the year 1991-92 (previous year ended March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner had to agree for the addition only for the reason that the second respondent has threatened the petitioner with prosecution steps, if the petitioner did not agree to such addition. Counsel submits that in spite of the fact that the petitioner had stated the aforesaid circumstances before the first respondent in the revision petition and there is no due consideration of the same in exhibit P3 order. Counsel further submits that in the instant case there was absolutely no justification for disallowing any portion of the loss as loss on speculation. Counsel also took me to the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 28 of the Act which provides that speculation business is different from other business and also to section 43(5) and pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 available and that it is for the assessing authority to peruse the same and arrive at the conclusion which has not been done. But it is an admitted fact that the assessing authority has proposed to disallow a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss on speculation and Rs. 10,000 towards the expenditure on that count and the petitioner had accepted the same. The case later put forward before the revisional authority is that the said agreement was on account of the threat of prosecution steps from the second respondent. I am afraid, such a contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
