[/ H!Gi^_COURT_OF,.C9HATTiSGARHATBJ.LASPUR D.B.HON'BLESHRIDHIREND^ HON'SLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAK^R. J J AppetJant ResDondent TaA_.C_ase.105of.20.IO Deputy Commissjoner of Income Tax, BhilaJ, District Durg (CG) Versys IVI/s Univeb SJeepers Pvt. Padmanabhpur, Durg (CG) Ltd., MIG-2, Present: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel forthe appeliant/revenue. Mr. Ashok Patil, counsel for the respondenVassessee. ORALJUDGMENT ^lrOcio^rr2oToT P^L^M[eDd£aMi§h^.A Revenue's appeal under Sectjon 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Acf) against the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Biiaspur Bench, BJJaspur (for brevlty "the Tribunal") has been admitted for hearing on the foltowing substantia! question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstancas of the 'c-ase, tearned ITAT has erred in detetina the addition of Rs.42,99,605/- made by the AO u/s 73 of the i.T. Act, djsaltowing the ioss specuiation trading of shares claimed from the business sncome?" 02. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee-company ss engaged in the business of manufacturing concrete sleepers and trading in shares. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2003- decSaring total jncome of Rs.1,60,30,340/-. The Assessjng Officer (in short "AO") made an addition of Rs.42,99,605/- by disaliowing set off claimed by the assessee as loss from trading in shares from the come of business and profession. 03. The assessee went jn appeat agalnst the above addition and the Commlssioner, tncome Tax (Appeals) (in short CIT(A)} adowed appeal of the assessee by following the declsion ofthe jurisdjctional STAT, BJIaspur Bench, Bilaspur in the appetjant's own case for assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No.213/NAG/2007 and hefd that share trading loss is treated as normai business loss and required to be sef otf against the buslness income. The .2 •%^1j ^w order of CIT(A) has been further confirmed by the Tribunal and the appeal preferred by the revenue has been dismissed by the impugned order. 04. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue invoived in this appeal Js identicaJ to the issue invotved jn Tax Case No.33/08 between the same parties, with the only difference that CIT(A) has atlowed appeal of the assessee in this case by reiying upon the decision of the Tribunal, which is under challenge in Tax Case No. 33/08. 05. We have heard tearned counsel for the parties and perused the assessment order, order passed by CJT(A) as also the jmpugned order. 06. We have already considered the substantial question of law arisjng in thls appeal in Tax Case (Income Tax Appeal) No.33 of 2008 between the same parties, wherejn ft has been held that the main source of income of the assessee company was not from "interest on securities", "Jncome from house property", "Capital gains", and (1ncome from other sources" and the company's princlpal business is aiso not that of granting of ioans and advances, and, therefore, case of the assessee squarely falls within the four corners of Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. The loss suffered by the assessee Sn the business of share trading cannot be set off against the incomie derived from its main business - construction of sleepers - and the same can be deemed to be a speculation business by virtue of deeming provisions as per Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. 07. On the basis of aforesaid discussjons, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. impugned order of the Tribunal as wei! as that of CST(A) are set aside, and order ofthe AO <s restored. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^