State Bank Of Saurashtra vs Additional Cit on 4 January, 2008
4. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee has claimed similar loss in the assessment year 1996-97 which is the amount of liability finally determined by Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of loss suffered in security transactions with Punjab National Bank (PNB). The assessee has claimed business loss and the Tribunal vide order dt 31-12-2004 for assessment year 1996-97 in ITA No. 5/Rjt/2004 filed by the assessee has allowed the loss of Rs. 212 crores and vide order dated 21-4-2006 for assessment year 1997-98 has allowed the loss of Rs. 147.75 crores. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court but the COD did not grant permission to the department to pursue the matter in the High Court. Therefore, the revenue 's appeals were withdrawn. Similarly in assessment year 1997-98, the issue relating to allowance of loss incurred in security transactions with PNB and CANFINA became final. Therefore, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the loss claimed in the year under consideration is a business loss, which is to be allowed. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee contended that the issue in controversy is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 5/Rjt/2004 dated 31-12-2004 [since reported in State Bank of Saurashtra v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95 TTJ (Ahd) 225 : (2005) 93 ITD 662 (Ahd)]. Therefore, the loss as claimed for the year under consideration may be allowed.