1980 (7) TMI 69 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on excess loss withdrawal. Assessee lacked evidence; insurance assessment upheld.

Batala Timber House Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Amritsar-I

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to support the Commissioner's withdrawal of the excess loss allowed to the assessee. The Court found that ... Loss Issues:1. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961Rs.Detailed Analysis:The case involved the assessment of a claimed loss of stock due to a fire incident by the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee claimed a loss of stock of Rs. 70,000, which was allegedly destroyed in a fire. The insurance company assessed the loss to the stock-in-trade at Rs. 39,445, which the assessee received as compensation. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) allowed a deduction of Rs. 30,555 for the loss of stock-in-trade in the assessment. Subsequently, the Commissioner found the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests as the allowable loss was determined to be Rs. 2,768, not Rs. 30,555. The Commissioner, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, withdrew the excess loss allowed by the ITO.The assessee appealed this decision before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), which upheld the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal found that the order of the ITO accepting the claim of loss of Rs. 70,000 was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests. The Tribunal noted that the assessors of the insurance company had detailed discussions with the assessee to determine the actual loss, which was agreed upon at Rs. 39,445. The Tribunal concluded that the ITO's acceptance of the higher loss claim was erroneous, and the Commissioner was justified in withdrawing the excess loss allowed to the assessee.Upon further review, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the assessee failed to provide concrete evidence to support the claimed loss of Rs. 70,000. The Court emphasized that the evidence presented by the insurance company, determining the loss at Rs. 39,445 after detailed discussions with the assessee, was substantial. The Court rejected the contention that the Tribunal erred in law and affirmed that all relevant material had been considered. The Court highlighted that the assessee had accepted compensation for the loss at Rs. 39,445 from the insurance company, reinforcing the Tribunal's decision. Ultimately, the Court answered the question in favor of the revenue, upholding the Commissioner's decision to withdraw the excess loss allowed to the assessee.