Rectification of mistake – Debatable issue –Adjusting the business loss against capital gain in terms of provisions of section 71(1) of the Act –View once allowed by the AO could not be rectified by him if the issues is debatable. [Section 154]

1.     3.  
Pr.CIT-6 vs. Creative
Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. [Income tax Appeal no 1570 of 2016 Dated: 13^th February, 2019 (Bombay High Court)]

Rectification
of mistake – Debatable issue –Adjusting the business loss against capital gain
in terms of provisions of section 71(1) of the Act –View once allowed by the AO
could not be rectified by him if the issues is debatable. [Section 154]

The
assessee is engaged in the business of Processing, Manufactures and Export of
Readymade Garments & Fabric, filed its return of income on 30.10.2005
declaring total loss of Rs. 4,37,23,576/-. The assessment order was passed on
31.12.2007 declaring total loss of Rs. 2,29,98,454/-. However, the AO made a
rectification of the assessment order u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act in its order on
the pretext that computation of loss has not been adjusted against the capital
gain and that excess loss has been allowed to the assessee and thus a sum of
Rs. 1,82,65,501/- was added on account of LTCG, against which an appeal was filed
before the CIT(A) on the ground, the order u/s. 154 was bad in law, void, ab
initio and was impermissible under the law.However, the ld. CIT(A) upheld
the order of AO.

Being aggrieved with the CIT(A) order, the assessee filed an appeal to
the ITAT. The Tribunal held that the assessee relied upon the judgment in case
of T.S.Balaram, ITO vs. Vokart Brothers & Others 82 ITR 50 (SC)
wherein it was held “that mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious
and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn
process and of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two
opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from
the record. The Ld AR further relied upon the cases of CIT vs. Victoria
Mills Ltd. [153 ITR 733], CIT vs. British Insulated Calender’s Ltd. [202
ITR 354], Addl. Second ITO vs. C.J. Shah [10 ITD 151 (TM)] and DCIT
vs. Shri Harshavardan Himatsingka [ITA No. 1333 to 1335/Kol/2012] (Bom. High
Court). In DCIT (Kol.) vs. Harshavardan Himatsingka, it was held
that the order passed by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act adjusting the business loss
against capital gain in terms of provisions of section 71(1) of the Act,
wherein assessee is entitled to carry forward the business loss without
adjusting the same from capital gain or the same is mandatory required to be
adjusted. It was further held by co-ordinate bench that this aspect of
provision of section 71(1) of the Act is also a subject matter of dispute and
there are case law both in favour and against the said proposition as
canvassed. Hence issue is debatable cannot be said that there was a mistake
apparent on record which could be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act, hence the
order passed by AO u/s. 154 of the Act is not sustainable. It was  further seen that in the regular assessment,
certain disallowance/additions were made by the AO which was deleted by ld.
CIT(A) in further appeal and the appeal filed by the department against the
order of CIT(A) has also been dismissed by the Tribunal and the case had
already travelled up to the ITAT till then no such interference was drawn at
the time of regular assessment or during the appellate stage. In view of the
above, ITAT held that  the order passed
by the AO u/s. 154 which was subsequently upheld by CIT(A) is void, ab
initio and the same is liable tobe set-aside and is not permissible under
the law.

Being aggrieved with the
ITAT order, the Revenue filed an appeal to the High Court. The Court held that
sub-section (1) of section 71 of the Act provides that where in respect of any
assessment year the net result of the computation under any head of income
other than “capital gains’ is a loss and the assessee has no income under the
head ‘capital gains’ he shall, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, be
entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income, if any,
assessable for that assessment year under any other head. This provision came
up for consideration before this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income
Tax vs. British Insulated Calendar’s Ltd. [202 ITR 354] in which it was
held that under sub-section (1) of section 71 of the Act the assessee has no
option in setting off the business loss against the heads of other income as
long as there was no capital gain during the year under consideration. The case
of the assessee does not fall under sub-section (1) of section 71 of the Act
since the assessee had declared capital gain. Such a situation would be covered
by subsection (2) of section 71 of the Act which reads as under;

“(2) Where in respect
of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under any head of
income, other than “Capital gains”, is a loss and the assessee has income
assessable under the head “Capital gains”, such loss may, subject to the
provisions of this Chapter, be set off against his income, if any, assessable
for that assessment year under any head of income including the head “Capital
gains” (whether relating to short-term capital assets or any other capital
assets)”.

In case of British
Insulated Calender’s (supra) this Court had in respect to sub-section 2 of
section 71 observed that “

in case of the assessee
declaring capital gain, he had an option to set off the business loss, whereas
no such option is given for sub-section (1)”. Before the High Court, of course,
the provision of sub-section 2 of section 71 of the Act was somewhat different
and the expression “ or, if the assessee so desires, shall be set off only
against his income, if any, assessable under any head of income other than
‘capital gains’” has since been deleted. Nevertheless, the question that would
arise is, whether even in the unamended form sub-section (2) of section 71 of
the Act mandates the assessee to set off its business loss against the capital
gains of the same year when this provision used an expression “may” as compared
to the expression “shall” used in s/s. (1).

In the present case, the Hon’ble Court was  not called upon to judge the correctness of
interpretation of either the revenue or the assessee. However the court
observed that issue  was far from being
clear. It was clearly debatable. In this position, the A.O, as per the settled
law, could not have exercised the rectification powers. The Income Tax Appeal
was dismissed.