2025 (12) TMI 862 - HC - Income Tax

Set off of short-term capital loss against long-term gains allowed, revenue's appeal rejected applying tax consistency principle

HC dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the ITAT order allowing the assessee's set off of short-term capital loss against long-term capital gains for ... Set off of STCL against LTCG - transfer of funds from the bank statement or books of account which were seized as a computer back up during the course of search - HELD THAT:- ITAT has proceeded on a correct footing in dismissing the revenue’s appeal inasmuch as the revenue was unable to point out any distinguishing factor in the case of Assessee, when on an identical fact pattern, the additions in the case of the father and brother of the Assessee have been deleted. The said proceedings have also attained finality as the revenue has not preferred any appeals post the CIT(A)’s order in the case of the Asseessees brother and father. The revenue cannot therefore blow hot and blow cold at the same time and come to a conclusion which is against the principles of consistency which need to be borne in mind in taxing statutes. Assessee had submitted before the CIT(A) all the factual details regarding the sale of shares of Jaising Capital Ltd and Jaising Maritime Pvt. Ltd. on account of which, STCL had arisen in the hands of the Respondent-Assessee of which he claims set off against the LTCG arising in the block period. Assessee also explained in detailed the entire factual matrix in respect of the STCL which has arisen in the hands of the Respondent-Assesee. The details about the date of acquisition, cost of acquisition and selling price of the shares was also submitted before the CIT(A) and the quantification of the STCL was also submitted before the CIT(A). Both the fact finding bodies CIT(A) and ITAT, even on merits, have appropriately appreciated the facts of the case and rightly come to the conclusion that the set off of STCL against LTCG has been rightly availed by the Respondent-Assessee. Thus, CIT(A) and the ITAT on appreciation of facts have recorded concurrent factual findings in respect of the set off of STCL against LTCG in the block period and have also applied the rule of consistency as required in taxing statutes by relying on the orders passed in the case of father and brother of the Respondent-Assessee in the identical fact pattern. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the disallowance of set off of short term capital loss against long term capital gain for the block period involved any substantial question of law warranting interference under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.2 Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' order allowing set off of short term capital loss against long term capital gain on the basis of identical factual findings and unchallenged orders in the cases of the assessee's father and brother. 1.3 Whether the principle of consistency in taxing statutes precluded the Revenue from taking a different stand in the assessee's case on the same fact pattern as that accepted in the related group cases. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Substantial question of law in disallowance of set off of short term capital loss against long term capital gain 2.1.1 Interpretation and reasoning The Court noted that the core dispute concerned the assessee's claim to set off short term capital loss (STCL) of Rs. 5,18,74,499/- against long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 5,21,24,609/- arising during the same block period. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had concurrently held, on appreciation of facts, that the STCL was genuine, arose from sale of specified shares within the block period, and was eligible for set off against LTCG in that period. The Court observed that the assessee had placed before the Commissioner (Appeals) full factual details regarding acquisition and sale of shares of Jaising Maritime Ltd. and Jaising Capital Pvt. Ltd., including dates of acquisition, cost of acquisition, dates and consideration of sale and the working/quantification of STCL. These materials were evaluated by the fact-finding authorities who accepted the genuineness of the transactions and the computation. On this basis, the Court held that the conclusions reached by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were pure findings of fact based on evidence, and no perversity or misapplication of law was demonstrated by the Revenue. Consequently, no substantial question of law under section 260A arose from the Tribunal's order. 2.1.2 Conclusions The Court concluded that all aspects regarding the allowability and set off of STCL against LTCG in the block period were factual in nature, properly appreciated by the lower authorities, and did not give rise to any substantial question of law requiring interference. The appeal was therefore not maintainable on this ground. 2.2 Justification for reliance on findings and orders in the cases of the assessee's father and brother; application of principle of consistency 2.2.1 Legal framework (as discussed) The Court proceeded on the principle that in taxing statutes, the rule of consistency requires the Revenue to adopt a uniform approach in respect of identical fact situations, particularly where orders in related cases on the same issue have been accepted and have attained finality. 2.2.2 Interpretation and reasoning The Tribunal had upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' order allowing the set off of STCL by expressly relying on: (a) Earlier orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the cases of the assessee's father and brother on identical facts, in which similar STCL arising from sale of shares of the same companies had been allowed to be set off against LTCG in the same block period; and (b) The fact that the Revenue had not challenged those orders, which had thus attained finality. The Commissioner (Appeals), in allowing the assessee's claim, recorded that the facts in the assessee's case were identical to those in the group cases and held that the findings in the father's and brother's appeals applied mutatis mutandis. The factual matrix relied upon included: transfer of shares of Jaising Maritime Ltd. and Jaising Capital Pvt. Ltd.; receipt/deemed receipt of consideration; the quantification of STCL; and the timing of the transactions within the block period. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel fairly admitted that no appeal had been filed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the father's and brother's cases and that those orders had attained finality. Despite this, the Revenue sought to distinguish the assessee's case without demonstrating any material differentiating fact. The Court held that the Revenue could not 'blow hot and cold' by accepting the favourable orders in the related group cases on an identical fact pattern and yet contend for a contrary result in the assessee's case. The rule of consistency required maintaining the same treatment, absent any distinguishing features, which the Revenue failed to establish. 2.2.3 Conclusions The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)' order by relying on the unchallenged, final orders in the group cases of the assessee's father and brother and applying them mutatis mutandis. The Revenue was barred, on principles of consistency in tax matters, from taking a different stand in the assessee's case on the same factual foundation. 2.3 Determination of date and genuineness of share transfers and the resulting short term capital loss within the block period 2.3.1 Interpretation and reasoning In the group cases of the assessee's father and brother-relied upon in the present matter-the Commissioner (Appeals) had referred to previous detailed findings addressing: (a) The date of transfer of shares pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and actual receipt of consideration; (b) The necessity of considering share transfer forms and related documents to establish the precise date and genuineness of the transfers; and (c) The validity of short term capital loss arising on transfer of shares, including to close relatives, and its use for set off against LTCG. Those findings included the acceptance that: - The date of execution of the MoU (6 March 1997) was taken as the date of transfer of shares, falling within the block period relevant for assessment; - The transfer of specified shares of Jaising Maritime Ltd. and Jaising Capital Pvt. Ltd. was effectively completed within the block period, and consideration was received or deemed to have been received; and - The computation of STCL of Rs. 5,18,74,499/- in respect of sale of 45,83,000 shares of Jaising Maritime Ltd. and 6,57,400 shares of Jaising Capital Pvt. Ltd. was properly supported by details of acquisition cost, sale price and dates. The Commissioner (Appeals), following these findings, accepted that the STCL so computed in the assessee's case arose within the block period and was available to be set off against LTCG of Rs. 5,21,24,609/- arising in the same block period. The Tribunal endorsed this factual conclusion, noting that no contrary material had been produced by the Revenue, and that the quantification and genuineness of the STCL had not been successfully impeached. The Court treated these as concurrent and well-founded factual determinations by the fact-finding authorities and refrained from reappreciating them under section 260A. 2.3.2 Conclusions The Court accepted the concurrent findings that: (i) The transfer of shares pursuant to the MoU dated 6 March 1997 occurred within the block period; (ii) The resulting STCL of Rs. 5,18,74,499/- was genuine and correctly quantified; and (iii) Such STCL was lawfully set off against LTCG of Rs. 5,21,24,609/- arising in the same block period. These findings, being purely factual and non-perverse, did not warrant interference. 2.4 Overall disposition 2.4.1 The Court held that the Tribunal's impugned order was based on proper appreciation of facts, correctly applied the principle of consistency in tax matters, and involved no error of law. 2.4.2 The appeal was dismissed, with the finding that no substantial question of law arose and that the set off of short term capital loss against long term capital gain, as allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal, stood confirmed. No order as to costs was made.