1985 (2) TMI 84 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows carrying forward of losses from leased commercial asset

The tribunal allowed the carrying forward of losses in respect of the assessee's share from M/s Punjab Industrial Works, Khanna. Despite the factory being ... - Issues:Carrying forward of losses in respect of the assessee's share from M/s Punjab Industrial Works, Khanna.Analysis:The appeal centered around the dispute regarding the carrying forward of losses related to the assessee's share from M/s Punjab Industrial Works, Khanna, which was contested by both the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). The assessee's counsel argued that the losses dated back to 1973-74 and were carried forward until 1978-79, despite the factory being leased out during those years. The Revenue's stance was that since the factory was leased out for eleven years, it constituted a different business, and thus, the losses from 1973-74 should not be permitted to be carried forward.The counsel for the assessee challenged the AAC's findings by citing relevant judgments, including CIT vs. Prem Chand Jute Mills Ltd. (1978) 114 ITR 769 (Cal), Commr. of Agrl. EPT vs. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951) 20 ITR 451 (SC), and Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta vs. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 559 (All). After examining the facts of the case and the provided citations, the tribunal concluded that the assessee's losses should indeed be allowed to be carried forward. It was established that the factory, which was the source of the assessee's income, remained the same commercial asset, even when leased out, and thus, the losses should be permitted to be carried forward.The tribunal drew parallels from the Supreme Court's decision in Lakshmi Silk Mills case, emphasizing that the income from the lease of commercial assets should be considered business income. Additionally, the principles laid down by the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Jute Mills Ltd. case were referenced, highlighting the importance of the lessor's intention for the leased asset to be treated as a commercial asset. In this case, the factory leased out was the same commercial asset previously used by the assessee for business activities, justifying the allowance of carrying forward losses against the lease income.The tribunal further supported its decision by referencing previous cases such as Prem Chand Jute Mills Ltd. and Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd., while distinguishing the case cited by the Departmental Representative. Ultimately, the tribunal accepted the contentions of the assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the decision in favor of the assessee.