For the assessment for 1958 59, the Income tax Officer disallowed loss of Rs.
The Appellate Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the questions raised by the Commissioner of Income tax were already well settled by the decision of this companyrt in Duni Chand Ratarias case.
The Commissioner of Income tax then filed an application under section 66 2 of the Income tax Act before the High Court.
45,676 incurred by the respondent, M s. Shri Govind Commercial Co. P. Ltd., Jaipur, hereinafter refereed to as the assessee, on the ground that this loss was incurred in speculative transaction on a large scale in hessian and gunny bags.
The Appellate Tribunal, on appeal, accepted the companytentions and held that the decision of the Supreme Court governed the case, and that, on the facts, it was satisfied that this was number a case where the transactions were settled by payment of differences.
The Commissioner of Income tax thereupon filed an application under section 66 1 , raising the following two questions Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was actual delivery of the companymodity within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 24 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 ?
It is numbered in the order that Shri M. L. Sharma admitted that the transactions were of a speculative nature since the deliveries were number taken.
Apparently, this admission was number understood properly by the Income tax Officer because the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and companytended that the admission was only to the affect that delivery of goods was number taken.
The assessee relied on the decision of this companyrt in Duni Chand Rataria v. Bhuwalka Brothers Ltd. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected the companytentions of the assessee and, distinguishing the decision of this companyrt in Duni Chand Ratarias case, upheld the order of the Income tax Officer.
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, rejecting the application under section 66 2 of the Income tax Act, filed by the appellant.
and Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the term scrips in Explanation 2 to section 24 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, can refer to scrips pertaining to any companymodity or to stocks and shares alone ?
