Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Dr. Debi Pal, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Explanation to Section 73 has no application in the matter. He laid great emphasis on the words 'for the purpose of this section' mentioned in the Explanation to Section 73, and submitted that the Explanation to Section 73 is relevant only for the purposes of Section 73 itself and does not travel to Sections 70, 71 and 72, or, for that purpose, to any other section of the Act. It is then submitted that when the unabsorbed business loss is carried forward under Section 72 of the Act, there is no question of declining carry forward of the said unabsorbed business loss because of application of Section 73 of the Act. It is further submitted that as to what will constitute 'speculation loss' for the purpose of Section 72 of the Act, will be governed by the provisions of Section 43(5) of the Act. The proposition thus advanced by the learned counsel is that the expression 'speculation business', for purposes other than Section 73 of the Act, is to be governed by the definition contained in Section 43(5), as read with Section 28 (Explanation 2), of the Act, and, therefore, the question of carry forward of 'business loss' is to be decided with reference to the provisions of Section 43(5) and not Explanation to Section 73. It has also been submitted that since it; is not even the revenue's case that the contracts are settled otherwise than by physical delivery, Section 43(5) does not come to the play in the instant case. Reliance was placed on the order of a co-ordinate bench in the case of Rajan Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1992] 41 ITD 469. As for the revenue's reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble juris diction al High Court in the case of CITv. Arvind Investments Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 365', while learned counsel was fair enough to admit that, in that judgment, Hon'ble High Court had held that even if the assessee carries on the only business of share dealing. Explanation to Section 73 will apply, learned counsel has also submitted that the above submissions of the assessee were neither raised before the High Court nor, accordingly, decided by the High Court. It was also pleaded that the High Court had no occasion to consider the present submission that after applying Sections 70, 71 and 72, there is no occasion for application to Section 73 because the unabsorbed loss is carried forward under Section 72 for set off in the succeeding year. Learned counsel submitted that the Explanation to Section 73 is a legal fiction and the same is, therefore, required to be strictly construed. In response to bench's query as to why should the special provisions under Section 73 not over-ride general provisions contained in Sections 70 to 72 and application of the principle of 'generalia specialibus non derogant, learned counsel submitted that but for the wordings 'for the purpose of this section' appearing in Explanation to Section 73, bench's query could have been replied in positive. He submitted that it may be simply a drafting error that these words have inadvertently crept in the statute but once these words exist on the statute, it is not open to us to apply this Explanation beyond Section 73, and thereby supplant the law or to cure the deficiencies contained therein. Learned counsel submitted that if the words used in Section 73 were 'for the purpose of setting off and carry forward of losses' in the place of 'for the purpose of this section', the assessee would indeed have had no case but then this Tribunal can only interpret the law as it actually existed and not as it should have existed. He thus admitted to be capitalizing on, what he perceived as, a 'lacunae in drafting of Explanation to Section 73'. It was on the basis of these submissions that learned counsel urged us to reverse the orders of the authorities below, by issuing direction to the effect that loss of Rs. 1,41,60,772 is required to be treated as a 'business loss', as against 'speculation loss' held by the authorities below. Without prejudice to these arguments, it was further submitted that loss in share dealings was only on account of fall in value of shares held as closing stock and, therefore, the loss so suffered cannot be said to be loss on account of 'purchase and sale of shares' within meanings of Section 73. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481 in support of the proposition that purpose of valuing closing stock is only to cancel out the related entries on the debit side of trading account and it was argued that loss sustained on valuation of closing stock cannot be said to be loss on account of sale and purchase of the shares. In response to bench's proposition that Chainrup Sampatram's case (supra) seems to supports the case of the revenue on that issue inasmuch as it holds that loss on account of fall in value of stock is to be treated as loss of that business on the ground of prudence, fully sanctioned by the custom, and as the only exception to the rigid doctrine of booking profits and losses in respect of goods actually sold, learned counsel submitted that his reliance on this judgment is only to highlight the true purpose of valuation of closing stock and that the loss of the assessee being admittedly a notional loss, it cannot be said to be loss on account of sale and purchase of shares and securities. It was submitted that, for this reason also, the loss of Rs. 1,41,60,772 should be treated as a normal 'business loss' and not as 'speculation loss'. We were thus urged to vacate, for this reason also, the findings of the authorities below and to direct the Assessing Officer to treat the loss of Rs. 1,41,60,772 as normal business loss to be carried forward under Section 72 of the Act. On the other hand, Sri R.R. Prasad, learned Departmental Representative, emphatically relied upon the authorities below, and submitted that the matter being squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Arvind Investments Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal should decline to interfere in the matter. It was submitted that the statutory provision is not even capable of any other interpretation than the one given by the authorities below and learned counsel's submissions are only aimed at confusing the issue by resorting to legal jugglery. It was also submitted that as observed by the Assessing Officer the impugned loss is loss on sale of shares and that there is no finding by the authorities below that the loss is on account of fall in valuation of shares. Learned Departmental Representative thus urged us to approve the orders of the authorities below and, thereby, decline to interfere in the matter. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and deliberated upon the applicable legal provisions and legal precedents on the issue in appeal before us.