1981 (6) TMI 71 - AT - Income Tax

High Court affirms Tribunal decision on business loss, allowing set-off against income. Department's challenge dismissed.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the transaction was not speculative, allowing the assessee to claim the loss as a business loss. The ... - Issues:- Disallowance of business loss claimed by the assessee- Determination of whether the transaction was a speculative businessAnalysis:The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the AAC confirming the disallowance of Rs. 13,500 claimed as business loss. The assessee had entered into contracts for the sale of cotton bales but failed to deliver the agreed quantity of cotton. The buyer rejected the inferior quality cotton offered by the assessee, leading to a settlement where the assessee paid Rs. 13,500 as damages for breach of contract. The ITO disallowed the loss as a speculative transaction under section 43(5) of the IT Act, 1961. The AAC upheld the ITO's decision. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee without determining if it was a speculative business, emphasizing that the loss was not from a speculative business of the assessee. The Tribunal directed the ITO to recompute the income by allowing the loss to be set off against the business income for the relevant assessment year.The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Department, leading to a reference to the High Court. The High Court answered in favor of the Department but noted that the Tribunal still needed to decide if the transaction was speculative. Subsequently, after a hearing, the Tribunal concluded that the transaction was not speculative as it was settled after the delivery date had expired. Therefore, the provisions of section 43(5) did not apply. The Tribunal referred to a Calcutta High Court case to support its decision, where a loss arising from a foreign exchange contract was allowed as a revenue expenditure as it was not speculative but incidental to the regular course of business. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim the loss as a business loss, and accordingly, the addition sustained was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.