TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to Shri Prakash R. Patil, Partner of M/s. Kothari and Kenia, CA for further action as he was attending to the taxation matters of the company. However, due to illness of Mr. Patil in the month of January 2010 he could not attend to the preparation of 2nd appeal and the delay of 17 days in filing the second appeal was solely for this reason which may be condoned and in support he also placed reliance on the affidavit dated 15.6.2010 of Shri Rahul Vasant Shah, Director of the assessee company and affidavit dated 7.6.2010 of Shri Prakash R. Patil, CA. The reliance was also placed on various decisions including the decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). On the other hand the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years and that too for the succeeding four years in which the loss was first computed. The Explanatory Notes on the Finance Act, 2005 also explains this amendment which is effective from the current Assessment Year i.e. Assessment Year 2006-07. Even on going through the language of the section it is clear that the words eight has been substituted by four . Therefore, there is no ambiguity in the interpretation of the provisions of this section that the speculation loss can be carried forward only for four successive year from the assessment year in which such loss was first computed and accordingly he declined to set off of speculation loss of ₹ 40,78,981 for Assessment Year 2000-01 and ₹ 4,15,955/- for Assessment Year 2001- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1009/Mum/2010 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 order dated 31.5.2010, wherein the Tribunal after considering the various decisions directed the Assessing Officer to allow set off of speculation loss brought forward from the Assessment Year 2001-02 against the speculation profits for the year under appeal i.e. Assessment Year 2006- 07. He also placed on record the copy of the said order of the Tribunal. He therefore, submits that the Assessing Officer may be directed to allow the brought forward speculation loss as claimed by the assessee. He further submits that in view of the said decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the ground No.3 taken by the assessee becomes infructuous. 9. On the other hand the ld. DR submits that for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was first computed and accordingly he declined set off of speculation loss of ₹ 40,78,981 for Assessment Year 2000-01 and ₹ 4,15,955/- for Assessment Year 2001-02 as more than four years have lapsed. On appeal ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 2 Taxmann 417 ; (1979) 120 ITR 921(SC). The facts of that case are that the assessee claimed set off of unabsorbed loss of Assessment Year 1950-51 against the income for Assessment Year 1960-61 on the ground that by virtue of section 24(2)(iii) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1957, it had vested right t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressly or by necessary implication. This had not been done either by section 75 or by section 297 of the 1961 Act. That vested right was preserved by section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act. The respondent was, therefore, entitled to the set-off claimed. 12. In Virendra Kumar Jain supra, the Tribunal dealing with the similar issue while relying on the judgment in Shah Sadiq Sons supra, has observed and held vide para-5 (page-5), 6 and 8 of its order as under:- .In our opinion, this judgement covers the present case entirely. In sub-section (4) of section 73 or in any other provision, there is no express language or any implication to the effect that the right of the assessee to carry forward the speculation loss for a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion). In Schedule BFLA, the assessee is required to give details of income after set off of brought forward losses of earlier years . Schedule CFL requires the assessee to give details of losses to be carried forward to future years . Herein we are concerned with the assessee s right to set off the brought forward speculation losses against the speculation profits for the assessment year 2006-07. Sub-section (4) of section 73 does not deal with this situation. Hence, it has no application. .. .. .. . . 8. In the result, the assessee s contentions are upheld and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow set off of the speculation loss brought forward from the assessment year 2001-02 against the speculation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
