Case: Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P Vs. Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad, Etc

2. The facts in C. A. 1761/67 in which the question in the above form was referred, the language of the question being somewhat different in the other appeal, may be stated. The assessee who is an individual derived income from three sources i.e. property, shares in joint stock companies an commission agency business and shares in partnership firms. The accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1953-54 was the period from October 20, 1951 to October 8, 1952. In the personal business of commission agency, the assessee returned a net profit Rs. 2761/-. In arriving at this figure the net share of loss of Rs. 11,075/- from the firm of Kamta Prasad Raghunath Prasad in which the assessee was a partner, was claimed. The Income-tax officer did not go into the details but ignored the figure in the absence of information from the Income-tax Officer assessing the aforesaid firm. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was submitted that the actual share of loss was Rs. 13,232/- and it included a sum of Rs. 8,669/- representing loss suffered in speculative dealing in silver paid through the firm Kamta Prasad Raghunath Prasad. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after examining the details of the loss, directed the Income-tax Officer to exclude a profit of Rs. 1415/- from the speculative transactions and to carry forward the net loss of Rs. 7,254/- for setting it off against the income of the assessee from speculative dealings in subsequent years. Before the appellate tribunal there was no dispute about these figures. What was contended was that the loss of Rs. 7,254/-should be set off against profit from other business. The tribunal rejected this contention following the decision in Keshavlal Premchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, 1957-31 ITR 7 = (AIR 1957 Bom 20  ). Thereafter the assessee moved the tribunal for making a reference to the High Court. The High Court did not accept the view in Keshavlal Premchands 1957-31 ITR 7 = (AIR 1957 Bom 20  ) which has been followed in several other decisions by other High Courts.3. Now certain provisions of the Act may be noticed before the case law is discussed. Section 6 gives the heads of income chargeable to income-tax which are six in number. Section 7 deals with the first head "salaries; Section 8 with second head "interest on securities"; Section 9 with "income from property" and S. 10 provides for liability to tax under the head "profits and gains of business, profession or vocation which is the fourth head given in S. 6. It is unnecessary to go to the 5th and 6th heads. Section 24 provides that where any assessed sustains a loss of profits or gains in any year under any of the heads mentioned in Section 6, he shall be entitled to have the amount of the loss set off against his income, profits or gains under any other head in that year. In the year with which we are concerned in the present case there was a proviso which was, at that time, the second proviso but it became the first proviso after the enactment of the Taxation Laws (Extention to Jammu and Kashmir) Act 1954. This proviso, at the material time, stood asfurther that in computing the profits and gains chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation, any loss sustained in speculative transactions which are in the nature of a business shall not be taken into account except to the extent of the amount of profits and gains, if any, in any other business consisting of speculative transactions."

Court's reasoning:
5. Moreover we are of the opinion that where the language is quite clear and no other view is possible it is futile to go into the question whether the proviso to S. 24 (1) operates as substantive provision or only by way of an exception to S. 24 (1). The proviso says in unmistakable and unequivocal terms that any losses sustained in speculative transactions which are in the nature of a business shall not be taken into account except to the extent of the amount of profits or gains in any other business consisting of speculative transactions. This has to be read with Explanation (1) according to which where the speculative transactions carried on are of such a nature as to constitute a business the business shall be deemed to be distinct and separate from any other business.