JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BAJRANGLAL CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated March 13, 2014, by which the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal preferred by the Revenue. The Assessing Officer held that the transaction in shares undertaken by the assessee was in the nature of a business transaction and not investment. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred by the assessee which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the transaction was really in the nature of an investment. The appellate authority discussed reasons as to why was the transaction in the nature of an investment. The Revenue preferred an appeal. The learned Tribunal agreeing with the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The Revenue has once again come up in appeal before us.

(2.) Mr. Saraf, learned advocate appearing for the Revenue, strenuously submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal is perverse. The Tribunal ignored the fact that the shares allegedly purchased in July were not taken delivery of till December nor was any payment made when the purchase was allegedly made in the month of July. This submission of Mr. Saraf evidently is based on misreading of the evidence. It would appear from the assessment order that payment was made for the shares in the month of July itself through bill accommodation facility.

(3.) Mr. Saraf relied upon a judgment in the case of CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd, 1975 100 ITR 706. He drew our attention to the following finding recorded by the apex court (page 713):