Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2007 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (6) TMI 295 - AT - Income TaxCarry-forward and set-off of business losses u/s 72 - Purchase and sale of shops - Whether the assessee was carrying on any business during the relevant previous year or not - HELD THAT:- The assessee had carried on business previously and subsequently. Only during the interregnum period of two years that the assessee was not in fact concluding any transactions as such. But that does not mean the cessation of business as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Karsondas Ranchhoddass [1971 (1) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. This aspect of the case should be clear if we go through the detailed letter written by the assessee-company to the CIT(A). In fact the CIT(A) has asked a pertinent question to the assessee that whether the assessee had carried on any business or not during the relevant period. The assessee has furnished statement giving details of purchase and sale of shops made by it during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. The assessee has also stated that similar activity was carried on by the assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1996-97. During the previous year period relevant to the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, the assessee could not carry on any business because of hostile market conditions prevailed in the real estate business. The assessee further explained that the business was resumed by the assessee-company during the impugned previous year and, therefore, there was no question of not doing any business as apprehended by the Assessing Officer. The contention of the ld senior DR is that the purchase and sale of shops stated to be made during the impugned previous year was only a make-belief arrangement. But we find to state that there is no material on record to support such an observation. On the other hand, the details were furnished before the CIT(A) and on that ground, the CIT(A) has come to a conclusion that the assessee has carried on business during the relevant previous year. Therefore, it is to be stated that the CIT(A) has considered both the objections raised by the Assessing Officer against the claim of the assessee on the question of carry forward of the loss. The CIT(A) has held on proper grounds that both the reasons pointed out by the assessing authority did not survive. It is for that reason, he has directed the Assessing Officer to carry forward the loss determined by him. Thus, we agree with the order passed by the CIT(A). In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
|