| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1998 2015 SLD 1998 (2015) 375 ITR 289 |
Karnataka High Court
IT APPEAL Nos. 920 & 922 OF 2008 JANUARY 9, 2015
N. KUMAR AND B. VEERAPPA, JJ
K.V. Aravind, Adv. for the Appellant. G. Sarangan, Sr. Counsel and Balaram R. Rao, Adv. for the
Respondent
IT APPEAL Nos. 920 & 922 OF 2008 JANUARY 9, 2015
N. KUMAR AND B. VEERAPPA, JJ
K.V. Aravind, Adv. for the Appellant. G. Sarangan, Sr. Counsel and Balaram R. Rao, Adv. for the
Respondent
Commissioner of INCOME TAX, Bangalore
VS
Shriram Chits (Karnataka) (P.) Ltd
Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Section: 28(i)
Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business loss/deductions - Allowable as (Bid-loss) - Assessment year 2003-04 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of conducting chits - It claimed bid-loss - Assessing Officer disallowed said bid-loss in absence of relevant materials in respect of bid-loss - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld order of Assessing Officer - Tribunal set aside order and directed Assessing Officer to allow claim - Whether where assessee-company did not produce relevant materials in respect of bid-loss occurred, impugned order could not be sustained - Held, yes [Para 5][In favour of revenue/Matter remanded] FACTS â– The assessee-company was engaged in the business of conducting chits. The assessee claimed bid-loss. â– The Assessing Officer disallowed said bid-loss. â– On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer holding that in spite of sufficient opportunity the assessee failed to furnish the information with regard to chit-wise member of optional tickets subscribed to, chit-wise dividend income received etc. â– On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the Assessing Authority to allow the claim. â– On appeal: HELD â– It is clear that, the assessee did not produce requisite information before the Tribunal. The assessee did not produce requisite information even before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the said findings recorded by the Tribunal that particulars were produced before the First Appellate Authority that the first Appellate Authority has not taken note of is erroneous. All that, the Assessing Authority wanted to know was, how the said figure was arrived and the evidence for the same. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the well considered order passed by the First Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. However, if the assessee is able to substantiate the said claim by producing acceptable evidence, in law the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of deduction. Therefore, it is appropriate that the matter be remanded to the Assessing Authority to give one more…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492