DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata V. M/s. Unisys Software And Holding Industries Ltd., , Kolkata

ITA 57/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4582 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM BILASH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Transactions in derivatives; Earning of tax free income; Speculation loss; Speculative transactions; Rule 8D; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 43(5); 250; 208; 43; 73; 22

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 57/KOL/2019 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2014-2015 M/S. UNISYS SOFT WARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES LIMITED 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA [VIRTUAL COURT HEARING] BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. I.T.A. NO. 57/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-2015 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ........................APPELLANT CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700069 -VS.- M/S. UNISYS SOFTWARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES LIMITED , ...........RESPONDENT 75C, PARK STREET, BASEMENT, KOLKATYA-700016 [PAN: AABCC1191Q] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI RAM BILASH MEENA, CIT, D.R., FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D. SHAH, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDEN T DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 06, 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 22, 2020 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT :- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, KOLKATA DAT ED 28.11.2018. 2. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,3 8,48,506/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND MO BILE PHONES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION W AS FILED BY IT ON 22.09.2014 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.20,49,919/-. DURI NG THE COURSE OF ITA NO. 57/KOL/2019 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2014-2015 M/S. UNISYS SOFT WARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES LIMITED 2 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN SHARES, THE INCOME OF WHICH WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX. SINCE NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOU NT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS OFF ERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED RULE 8D TO WORK OUT S UCH EXPENSES AT RS.1,38,48,506/- AND A DISALLOWANCE TO THAT EXTENT WAS MADE BY HIM UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 4. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U NDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER CONSIDERING T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL FACT RELEVA NT ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- GROUND NO.1 OF THIS APPEAL IS REGARDING THE DISALL OWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S.14A READ WITH 8D OF RS.1,38,48,506/ -. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT THAT DUR ING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THEY DID NOT EARN ANY EXEMPTED INCOME . THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF CHETTINAD LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 95 TAXM ANN.COM 250 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U /S.14A SHOULD BE MADE WHEN NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNE D. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECIS ION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S ASHIKA GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD, ITAT 100 OF 2014, ORDER DATED 11TH JUNE, 2018, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS WARRANTED WHEN NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE APPELL ANT. IN THIS CASE, AS SUBMITTED BY THE AIR, NO EXEMPT IN COME HAS BEEN EARNED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE C ITED DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT AND THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS.1,38,48,506/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS AGREED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES, THIS ISSUE IS SQ UARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALC UTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ASHIKA GLOBAL SECURITIES LIMITED (SUPR A), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD ITA NO. 57/KOL/2019 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2014-2015 M/S. UNISYS SOFT WARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES LIMITED 3 THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IS WARRANTED WHEN NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN ACTUALLY EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DUR ING THE RELEVANT YEAR. SINCE NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS ACTUALLY EARNED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, W E RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT AND UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A READ WIT H RULE 8D. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.46,05,806/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON SOFTWARE. 7. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, DEPRECIATION OF RS.46,0 5,806/- WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON CERTAIN COMPUTER SOFTWARE, NAMEL Y STANDARD ERP FARMA, SERVER CONFIGURED WITH TEMS SOFTWARE, OMNITE CH BUSINESS WORK ENGINE VERSION 3.0 WORKFLOW SOFTWARE FOR REGISTRARS . AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SIMILAR DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID COMPUTER SOFTWARE WAS D ISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2012-13. HE ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWED THE CONCLUSIO N DRAWN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE AND DISA LLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.46,05,806/-. 8. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON CERTAIN SOFTWARE WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED T HE SAID DISALLOWANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORD ER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT AND THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD ITA NO. 57/KOL/2019 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2014-2015 M/S. UNISYS SOFT WARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES LIMITED 4 TO SHOW THAT THE SOFTWARE WAS NOT USED FOR THE BUSI NESS PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S THE APPELLANT HAS ELABORATED ON THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE SOFTWARE HAD BEEN UTILISED. FURTHER, THE AO HIMSELF HAS ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON THE SOFTWARE IN THE AYR.201 3-14. ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS THERE CAN BE NO CASE FOR DEVI ATION ON THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AO IN THE EARLIER YEAR. IT HAS N OT BEEN SHOWN BY THE AO THAT THERE WAS ANY MATERIAL DIFFERE NCE IN THE FACTS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN AYR.2013-14. THIS YEAR THE ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATIO N IS ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL AS THE ASSETS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUT T O USE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.46 ,05,806/- IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS PER T HE SPECIFIC FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED OR DER, DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE IN QUESTION WAS ALLOWED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR A.Y. 2013- 14 AND THERE IS NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT TO REBUT OR CONTROVERT THIS FINDING OF FACT RECORDED B Y THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE IN THIS REGARD, WHEN THE DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ON SOFTWARE IN QUESTION FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, I.E. A.Y. 2013- 14, THE SAID SOFTWARE HAD ENTERED INTO THE CONCERNE D BLOCK OF ASSETS AND THE UTILISATION OF SAID SOFTWARE FOR THE PURPOS E OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS HAD BECOME IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING D EPRECIATION. MOREOVER AS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED OR DER, THERE WAS NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE SAID SOFTWARE WAS NOT USED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR THE PURPOS E OF ITS BUSINESS. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON CERTAIN SOFTWARE IN QUES TION AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 10. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER BY ITA NO. 57/KOL/2019 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2014-2015 M/S. UNISYS SOFT WARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES LIMITED 5 TREATING THE SHARE TRADING LOSS AND COMMODITY DERIV ATIVE TRADING LOSS AS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE. 11. IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH T HE RETURN OF INCOME, A LOSS OF RS.1,42,28,624/- WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E ON COMMODITIES AND SHARE TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, THE TRANSACTIONS IN COMMODITIES WERE AKIN TO TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES AND EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WAS APPLICABLE EVEN IN CASE OF LOSS FROM THE COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES MAI N SOURCE OF INCOME WAS ITS BUSINESS INCOME FROM TRADING IN HARDWARE AND SO FTWARE, MOBILE PHONES, AND INVESTMENT IN SHARES & SECURITIES. HE H ELD THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 THUS WAS APPLICABLE TO THE LOSS SUFFE RED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH IN COMMODITIES AND SHARE TRANSACTIONS AND INVO KING THE SAID EXPLANATION, HE TREATED THE LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.1, 42,28,624/- AS SPECULATION LOSS. 12. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE LOSS FROM COMMODITIES AND SHARE TRANSACTIONS AS SPECULATION L OSS BY INVOKING THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE SAID LOSS AS NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO OF RS.L,42,28,624/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMODITIE S DERIVATIVE AND SHARE TRANSACTION LOSS BY TREATING T HEM A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS COM MODITY TRADING LOSS OF RS.45,82,560/- AND SHARE TRADING LO SS OF RS.96,46,064/-. AS REGARDS THE COMMODITY DERIVATIVE TRADING LOSS OF RS.45,82,560/-, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF ASIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 293 CTR 240 FOR THE PROPOSIT ION THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WILL NOT HIT COMMODITY TR ADING LOSS. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- ITA NO. 57/KOL/2019 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2014-2015 M/S. UNISYS SOFT WARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES LIMITED 6 'HOW CAN IT BE SAID THAT SUB-SEC. (5) OF S. 43 IS A GENERAL PROVISION AND THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN S. 73 IS S PECIFIC IN NATURE? ON THE CONTRARY, THE OBJECT OF SUB-S (5) OF S. 43 IS TO DEFINE 'SPECULATIVE BUSINESS'. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE ACTIVITIES APPEARING IN CLS.(A) TO (E) OF PROVISO T O S. 43(5) ARE NOT TO BE DEEMED TO BE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS. TH EREFORE, THIS COMES WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF DEEMED BUSINESS W HICH IS HOWEVER DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM ANY OTHER BUSINE SS. NOW, THE QUESTION IS, WHETHER LOSS ARISING OUT OF SUCH D EEMED BUSINESS CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFIT ARISING OUT OF OTHER BUSINESS OR BUSINESS WHICH MAY FOR CLARITY BE CALLE D PROPER BUSINESS. UNDER S.70, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO H AVE THE LOSS SET OFF AGAINST HIS INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE UN DER THE SAME HEAD UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE LOSS ARISING OUT OF DEEMED BUSINESS SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF BUSINESS PROP ER UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED. THE QUESTION HOWEVER REMAINS WH ETHER THE EXPLANATION TO S. 73 RELIED UPON BY REVENUE PRO VIDES OTHERWISE. A PLAIN READING OF THE EXPLANATION CANNO T BE SAID TO HAVE PROVIDED OTHERWISE. IN THAT CASE THE IRRESI STIBLE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF SUCH LOSS ARISING THAT OF DEEMED BUSINESS AGAINST THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF BUSINESS PROPER. SHARES FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE EXPLANATION TO S. 73 BUT DERIVATIVES CANNOT BE TREA TED AT PAR WITH THE SHARES BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAS TREATED THEM DIFFERENTLY CIT VS DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD (2 013) 91 DTR (DEL) 49: (2013) 261 CTR (DEL) 127 DISSENTED FR OM,' ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT DERIVATIVES CANNOT BE AT PA R WITH SHARES WITHIN THE PROVISION OF EXPLANATION TO SECTI ON 73. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO TREAT THE COMMODITY DE RIVATIVE TRADING LOSS AS NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS. AS REGARDS SHARE TRADING LOSS OF RS.96,46,064/- IS CONCERNED, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HA S FILED A RETURN SHOWING TOTAL OF RS.1,35,52,332/-. THE LOSS UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN RS.20,49,919/-. HOWEVER, THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES HA S BEEN SHOWN AT RS.L,56,02,2511-. AS THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES (RS.1,56,02,251/-) IS MORE THAN THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS(RS.20,49,91 9/-), IT HAS THEREFORE BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE CASE OF THE A PPELLANT DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY AS STIPULATED IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. IT IS OBSERVED IN THIS CASE THAT THE DOMINANT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE H EAD OTHER SOURCES. THE AIR OF THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIAN CE ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF EASTERN AVIATION & INDUSTRIES 208 ITR( 1 023) FOR THE PROPO SITION THAT WHERE THE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CO MPRISE OF PURCHASE & SALE OF THE SHARE, EXPLANATION TO SECTIO N 73 WILL ITA NO. 57/KOL/2019 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2014-2015 M/S. UNISYS SOFT WARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES LIMITED 7 NOT APPLY. IN THIS CASE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AP PELLANT HAS EARNED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS.1,56,02,251/ - WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.20,49,919/-. HENCE, PURCHASE & SALE OF SHARE IS NOT THE DOMINANT BUSINE SS. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF EASTERN A VIATION & INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.96,46,064/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS T HE ISSUE RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE LOSS IN COMMODI TY TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.45,82,560/- BEING THE NORMAL BUSINE SS LOSS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SAME IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE COMMODI TY TRADING LOSS. AS REGARDS THE SHARE TRADING LOSS OF RS.96,46,064/- IS CONCERNED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 IS HELD TO BE NOT APPLICABLE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AFTER HAVING FOUND THAT THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS MUCH MORE THAN ITS INCOME FR OM BUSINESS. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO REBUT OR CONTROVERT THIS FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TREATING THE LOSS FROM TRANSACTION IN COMMODITIES AND SHARES AS NORMAL BUS INESS LOSS NOT BEING COVERED BY EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 22, 2 020. SD/- SD/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (P.M. JAG TAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT KOLKATA, THE 22 ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020 ITA NO. 57/KOL/2019 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2014-2015 M/S. UNISYS SOFT WARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES LIMITED 8 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700069 (2) M/S. UNISYS SOFTWARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES L IMITED, 75C, PARK STREET, BASEMENT, KOLKATA-700016 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, K OLKATA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.