COMMR OF INCOME TAX U P COMMR OF INCOME TAX U P Vs. JAGANNATH MAHADEO PRASAD:GAURI DUTT BHAGWAN DASS AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question which arises in these appeals by certificate, is whether speculative losses can be set off against profits from any other business activity under S. 10 in spite of the first proviso to S. 24 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.

(2.) The facts in C. A. 1761/67 in which the question in the above form was referred, the language of the question being somewhat different in the other appeal, may be stated. The assessee who is an individual derived income from three sources i.e. property, shares in joint stock companies an commission agency business and shares in partnership firms. The accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1953-54 was the period from October 20, 1951 to October 8, 1952. In the personal business of commission agency, the assessee returned a net profit Rs. 2761/-. In arriving at this figure the net share of loss of Rs. 11,075/- from the firm of Kamta Prasad Raghunath Prasad in which the assessee was a partner, was claimed. The Income-tax officer did not go into the details but ignored the figure in the absence of information from the Income-tax Officer assessing the aforesaid firm. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was submitted that the actual share of loss was Rs. 13,232/- and it included a sum of Rs. 8,669/- representing loss suffered in speculative dealing in silver paid through the firm Kamta Prasad Raghunath Prasad. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after examining the details of the loss, directed the Income-tax Officer to exclude a profit of Rs. 1415/- from the speculative transactions and to carry forward the net loss of Rs. 7,254/- for setting it off against the income of the assessee from speculative dealings in subsequent years. Before the appellate tribunal there was no dispute about these figures. What was contended was that the loss of Rs. 7,254/-should be set off against profit from other business. The tribunal rejected this contention following the decision in Keshavlal Premchand vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, 1957-31 ITR 7. Thereafter the assessee moved the tribunal for making a reference to the High Court. The High Court did not accept the view in Keshavlal Premchand's 1957-31 ITR 7 which has been followed in several other decisions by other High Courts.

(3.) Now certain provisions of the Act may be noticed before the case law is discussed. Section 6 gives the heads of income chargeable to income-tax which are six in number. Section 7 deals with the first head "salaries; Section 8 with second head "interest on securities"; Section 9 with "income from property" and S. 10 provides for liability to tax under the head "profits and gains of business, profession or vocation which is the fourth head given in S. 6. It is unnecessary to go to the 5th and 6th heads. Section 24 provides that where any assessed sustains a loss of profits or gains in any year under any of the heads mentioned in Section 6, he shall be entitled to have the amount of the loss set off against his income, profits or gains under any other head in that year. In the year with which we are concerned in the present case there was a proviso which was, at that time, the second proviso but it became the first proviso after the enactment of the Taxation Laws (Extention to Jammu and Kashmir) Act 1954. This proviso, at the material time, stood as follows: