Mrs. Kamlesh Goyal, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 815/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9098 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTALDR
• Assessee Lawyers: ATUL MANDHAR
• Keywords: Business income; Transactions in derivatives; Speculation loss; Revised return
• Section: 43(5); 139(5); 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 815/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MRS. KAMLESH GOYAL, VS THE DCIT, PROP. M/S R.K. ALLOYS, CIRCLE VII, 55-A, KITCHLU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ACAPG4696C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ATUL MANDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL,DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.09.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA DATED 21.03.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LRD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) - 3, LUDHIANA IS DEFECTIVE BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LRD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS BEEN UNJUSTIFIED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON ALL ISSUES RAISE D DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND IN NOT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 3. THAT THE LRD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS BEEN UNJUSTIFIED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LOSSES IN TRADING IN DERIVATIVES I.E. COMMODITY TRADING IS NOT SPECULATION LOSS AND IS IN FACT BUSINESS LOSS. 4. THAT THE LRD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS BEEN UNJUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING SETOFF OF LOSS ON ACCOUN T OF TRADING IN 2 DERIVATIVES AGAINST TOTAL INCOME COMPRISING OF BUSI NESS INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. THAT THE LRD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS BEEN UNJUSTIFIED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD DULY CLAIMED LOSS FROM COMMODITY TRADING IN INCOME TAX RETURN FI LED. 6. THAT THE LRD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS BEEN UNJUSTIFIED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE DERIVATIVE L OSS AS REDUCED BY THE EXTENT OF RS. 20,69,946/- BY THE LRD. ASSESSING OFF ICER. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 10,75,180/ -. THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF NON-FERROUS METALS SUCH AS ZINC, NICKEL, LEAD, TIN, COPPER ETC. AND TRADING OF COMMODITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKEN UP THE MATTER FOR SCRUT INY ASSESSMENT AND CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF LOSS IN SPECULATION BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A LOSS OF RS. 66,51,760/- ON COMMODITY TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE WOULD BE CONTINGENT IN NATURE AND CANNOT B E ALLOWED AND AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE HELD THAT LO SS OF RS. 20,69,946/- I.E. RS. 66,51,760/- (-) RS. 45,81, 814/- WAS DISALLOWED AND LOSS FROM SPECULATION BUSINESS T O BE CARRIED FORWARD IN A SUM OF RS. 45,81,814/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R ABOUT SPECULATION BUSINESS AND DIRECTED THAT LOSS F ROM SPECULATION BUSINESS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO RS. 45,81,814/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) AND RAISED FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN 3 THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ON FIRST GROUND, ASSESSEE STAT ED THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND WHILE MAKING ADDITION. ON SECOND GROUND, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INITIATING PENALTY PROC EEDINGS. ON GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BRUSHING ASIDE EARLIER ARGUMEN TS ADVANCED BEFORE HIM. ON 4 TH GROUND, ASSESSEE SEEKS LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THUS, NOTED THAT GROUND NO. 1, 3 AND 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING LAUNCHING OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PROCEEDINGS. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. IT MAY BE NO TED HERE THAT IN ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFOR E LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSIDERING LOSS IN SPECUL ATION BUSINESS IN A SUM OF RS. 66,51,760/- ON COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT CHALLENGE THE DISALLOWANCE OF SPECULATION LOSS OF RS. 20,69,946/- BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON LOSS IN SPECULATION BUSINESS W AS PRACTICALLY NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 4. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL : THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN DERIVATIVES I.E. COMMODITY FUTURE SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS 4 LOSS AND SHOULD BE SET-OFF AGAINST GROSS TOTAL INCOME COMPRISING OF BUSINESS INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4(I). IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INC URRED A TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 66,51,760/- DURING ASSESSMENT YEA R UNDER APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN DERIVATIVES I .E. COMMODITY FUTURES. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THIS LOSS WAS NOT SET OFF AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 0-71 AGAINST TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 11,75,682/- COMPRISING OF BUSINESS INCOME AND 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' BUT WAS CARRIED FORWARD AS SPECULATION LOSS. THE BUSINESS LOSS IN DERIVATIVES WAS ALSO NOT SET OFF IN ANY OF THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME OR 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID N OT ALLOW ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND DISMISSED THE SAME. RESULTANTLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DISMISSED. THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN PAR A 5, 6 AND 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,75,180/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING & TRADING ON NON-FERROUS METALS SUCH AS ZINC, NICKEL, LEAD, TIN, COPPER ETC AND TRADING OF COMMODITIES. IN THE RETURN OF IN COME THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.66,51,760/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED CARRY FORWARD OF SPECULATION LOSS OF RS .45,81,814/-. 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT 5 AND FACTS OF THE CASE ON RECORD. VIDE ADDITIONAL GR OUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS REQUESTED FOR SET-OFF OF LOSS ON ACCO UNT OF TRADING IN DERIVATIVES I.E COMMODITY FUTURES AGAINST THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,75,682/- FILED BY HER. IT IS NOTICEABLE THAT CLAIM FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THIS LOSS AGAINST GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS NEITHER MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED NOR WAS MADE DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONLY VIDE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN DERIVATIVES I.E COMMODITY FUTURES SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS LOSS AND SHOULD BE SET-OFF AGAINST GROSS T OTAL INCOME COMPRISING OF BUSINESS INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, BY TAKING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WITHOUT ACTUALLY EXAMINING WHETHER THE CLAIM O F THE APPELLANT THAT THE SPECULATION LOSS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN AMOUNTIN G TO RS.66,51,760 WAS ACTUALLY LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN DERIVATI VES I.E COMMODITY FUTURES AND ALLEGEDLY IT WAS BUSINESS LOSS IT IS HE LD THAT CLAIM FOR SET- OFF OF THIS LOSS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC 70 AND 71 OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES, AS CLAIMED FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS CANN OT BE ENTERTAINED. WHEN SPECULATION LOSS (AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND C/F TO NEXT YEAR) IS CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS LOSS (ON ACCOU NT OF TRADING IN DERIVATIVES I.E COMMODITY FUTURES) THE BUSINESS INC OME OF THE APPELLANT WILL BE BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 54,76,078/- ( 66,51,760- 11,75,682/-) AND THIS AMOUNT OF LOSS WILL BE CARRIE D FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR. IN THIS REGARD REFERENCE IS MADE TO SEC 139 (3) OF THE I T ACT 1961 'IF ANY PERSON WHO HAS SUSTAINED A LOSS IN ANY PREV IOUS YEAR UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSI ON' OR UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' AND CLAIMS THAT THE LOSS OR AN Y PART THEREOF SHOULD BE CARRIED FORWARD UNDER SUB-SEC. (1) OF SEC . 72, OR SUB-SEC. (2) OF SEC. 73, OR SUB-SEC. (1) OR SUB-SEC. (3) OF SEC. 74, OR SUB-SEC. (3) OF SEC. 74A, HE MAY FURNISH, WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWE D UNDER SUB SEC. (1), A RETURN OF LOSS IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VE RIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH OTHER PARTICU LARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, AN ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY AS IF IT WERE A RETURN UNDER SUB-SEC. (1).' 6 IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, T HE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER SEC 13 9(3) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 AND CLAIM BUSINESS LOSS AND CARRY FORWARD THE SAME, BUT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE CLAIM BY FILING RETURN OF IN COME RATHER ISSUE IS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS . A REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE CASE OF KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. VS. CIT WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT LOSES NOT CLAIMED IN ORIGINAL RETURN, CANNOT BE CLAIMED BY FI LING REVISED RETURN. IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'A' KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. V/S. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX I T APPEAL NO. 81 (BANG.) OF 2011 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05] MARCH 30, 2012. 'THEREFORE, WHEN IT FILED THE RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IT HAVE TAKEN THIS LOSS INTO CONSIDERATION AND SHOU LD HAVE FILED THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HAVING FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1), THE ASSESSEE CANNOT LATER ON FILE THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING THE LOSS ON T HE GROUND THAT IT WAS DISCOVERED SUBSEQUENTLY. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE A SSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT( A) THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE LOSS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSE SSMENT YEAR AND ALSO CLAIMING THE LOSS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD OF THE LOSS OF 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY, THEN THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRE D TO FILE THE RETURN U/S 139(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THEREFORE, THE RE VISED RETURN FILED U/S 139(5) CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND HAS TO BE TREATED AS NULL AND VOID. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) AND ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED.' IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE LOSS HAS BEEN NEITHER CLAIM ED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN NOR IN THE REVISED RETURN. ONLY BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE CLAIM FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING APPEAL AS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, THERE FORE CLAIM OF SET- OFF OF LOSS AGAINST GROSS TOTAL INCOME IS NOT ALLOW ED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS D ISMISSED. 7 5. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY SUBMITTE D THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT PASS ANY SPEAKING ORDER. WHEN LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO EXPLAI N AS TO WHICH SPECIFIC ORDER HAS NOT BEEN PASSED, LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ERROR IN T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NO. 6 WITH REGARD TO REDUCING THE SPECULATIVE LOSS IN A SUM OF RS. 20,69,946/- WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT HE WOULD NOT BE PRES SING GROUND NO. 6. ULTIMATELY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WOULD RESTRICT HIS ARGUMENTS TO T HE ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND WOULD RESTRICT HIS ARGUMENTS ON GR OUND NOS. 3 AND 4 ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND THE F ACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DISMISSING GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 FILED BEFORE HIM. GR OUND NOS. 1, 2, 5 AND 6 NOW RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL A RE ALSO NOT PRESSED, THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISM ISSED. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LOSS IN TRADING IN DERIVATIVES I.E. COMMODITY TRADING IS NOT SPECULATIVE LOSS AND IN-FACT BUSINESS LOSS. EVEN I F THIS GROUND WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO CLAIM IS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND NO RET URN 8 UNDER SECTION 139(3) HAVE BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE, T HE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE POWER TO ADJUDICATE UPON THIS ISSUE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I) CIT VS RAMCO INTERNATIONAL 221 CTR 491 (P&H) II) NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS CIT 229 ITR 383 (S.C) III) CIT VS JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. 306 ITR 42 (DEL) IV) CIT VS PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHARE HOLDERS (P) LTD. 349 ITR 336 6(I) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT NO ERROR HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DISMISSING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONSIDERED LOSS IN SPECULATION BUSINESS IN A SUM OF RS. 66,51,760/- ON COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REPLY BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PLEAD IT TO BE A B USINESS LOSS OR SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME OR 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSID ERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, DISALLOWED SPECULA TION LOSS IN A SUM OF RS. 20,69,946/- AND LOSS FROM SPECULATION BUSINESS WAS CARRIED FORWARD IN A SUM O F RS. 45,81,814/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY GR OUND OF 9 APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SPECULATIVE LOSS OF RS. 20,69,946/- IN ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 45,81,814/- TO BE SPECULATIVE BUSINESS LOSS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. S ECTION 43(5) PROVIDES DEFINITION OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION MEANS A TRANSACTION IN WHICH A CONTRACT FOR THE PUR CHASE OR SALE OF ANY COMMODITY INCLUDING STOCKS AND SHARE S, IS PERIODICALLY OR ULTIMATELY SETTLED OTHERWISE THAN B Y THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF THE COMMODITY OR SCR IPS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW IF ANY TRANSACTION WAS CONDUCTED OR SETTLED BY THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF THE COMMODITY OR SCRIPS. SINCE THE ISSUE OF SPECULATIV E LOSS WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND NO GROUND OF APPEAL HAV E BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, FINDING OF FACT HAS REACHED FINALITY THAT LOSS SUFFERED BY ASSESSEE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SPECULATIVE BUSINESS. ALL GROUNDS WE RE VAGUE AND GENERAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE WHICH WERE CORRECTLY DISMIS SED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 8. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED IN HIS FINDINGS THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SPECULAT IVE LOSS OF RS. 66,51,760/- AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A LLOWED CARRY FORWARD OF THE SPECULATIVE LOSS OF RS. 45,81, 814/-. 10 THIS FINDING OF FACT HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD . THE ASSESSEE IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL HAS TRIED TO CHANGE THE WHOLE COMPLEXION OF THE ISSUE BY CLAI MING SPECULATIVE LOSS TO BE BUSINESS LOSS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME. SINCE NO APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF SPECULATIVE LOSS OF RS. 20,69,946/- THEREFORE, WHOLE OF THE TRANSACTION SHALL HAVE TO B E CONSIDERED AS SPECULATIVE LOSS. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) REFERRED TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(3) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT IN CASE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BUSINESS LOSS, THEN UN DER SECTION 139(3), RETURN OF LOSS SHALL HAVE TO BE FUR NISHED IN SPECIFIED MANNER WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH WAS ALSO NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE. 9. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RELIED UPON ORDER OF ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. V CIT (SUPRA) WHICH IS TOTAL LY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND NO CASE LAWS HAVE BEEN CIT ED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS PROPOSITION DECIDED BY TH E BANGALORE BENCH. SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , LOSS HAS BEEN NEITHER CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN NOR IN THE REVISED RETURN, THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS CORRECTL Y DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE CASE LAWS R ELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE PROPOSI TION THAT APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVE POWER TO ALLOW DEDUCT ION 11 EVEN IF NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOM E, WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BECA USE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS HAVING ENOUGH MATERIAL BEF ORE HIM TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DISMISSING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BE FORE HIM WHICH HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED NOW BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL ON GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 ABOVE. NO INFIRMITY HAVE BE EN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 OF APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 14 TH SEPT.,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH