Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Salasar Stock Broking Ltd on 27 November, 2008
Author: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
ITA No. 804 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax)
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II
Versus
SALASAR STOCK BROKING LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANKAR PRASAD MITRA Date : 27th November, 2008.
The Court : The only question urged before us on behalf of the Department that the disallowance of a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- as treated by the assessing officer to be the expenditure incurred on share trading business has been deleted by the C.I.T Appeals. The said order passed by the C.I.T Appeals has also been affirmed by the learned Tribunal.
After perusing the order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears to us that the learned Tribunal recorded the reasons for deleting the said addition by the C.I.T. Appeals, which is set out hereunder:
"6.2. In my opinion, this disallowance is completely arbitrary and against the law. Without attempting to establish nexus between the expenditure and the income, no part of expenditure can be classified as speculative expenditure and such category is not recognized under the law. It is seen from the annual report that the appellant was bound to incur the expense in Schedule XII to XVI of the profit and loss account just to remain in business. On this point the burden of proving the nexus of any portion of 2 business expenditure claimed by the appellant with speculative business in terms of Explanation to Section 73 must remain with the Assessing Officer. This is not discharged. Under the circumstances, ground no.2 must be allowed."
It, further, appears that the said fact was not controverted at the time of hearing of the appeal before the learned Tribunal by the Department which is also recorded in the order so passed by the learned Tribunal.
Hence, we do not find any reason to admit this appeal on the said ground, which has been urged before us.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) (SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, J.) Bp.
R.O(Ct.)