This appeal by assessee relates to asst. yr. 1979-80. assessee is individual deriving income from business. In accounting year relevant to asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1977-78, admittedly one of businesses carried on by assessee was that of bookmaker with permission of different turf clubs in India. assessee sustained losses in said business in those years. Under rules of various turf clubs assessee had to apply each year in relevant racing season for permission for making Book and had to deposit big amount (approximately Rs. 50,000) towards security deposit and other amounts towards stall fees. permission could be obtained only on deposit of these amounts. In rules this permission is at some places described as licence and two terms, permission and licence, appear to have been interchangeably used. In above mentioned years assessee had obtained necessary permission/licence and entered into transactions of bookmaking. According to assessee he had temporarily supended these transactions in accounting year relevant to asst. yr. 1978-79 because of losses of earlier years so that he may get some breathing time and with said income from other business resume these transactions. He resumed these transactions in 1981. In accounting year relevant for asst. yr. 1979-80,he had positive income from some other business, viz. business of commission from Pest Control M. Waisha and Northern India (Tiles) Sales Corporation. He sought to set off against this business income brought forward losses of business of book- keeping of earlier years under s. 72 of IT Act, 1961. ITO, as also CIT(A) in appeal against assessment order, have disallowed claim of set off on sole ground that assessee could not be said to have carried on business of bookmaking in relevant accounting year while one of essential conditions for allowance of set off under s. 72(1) was that such business should have been carried on in relevant accounting year. assessee has now come in appeal before us and contention is that business transactions in business of bookmaking should be deemed to have been suspended temporarily and that it should be held that business itself had not been closed. Reliance is placed on several documents to which we would presently refer. On other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has relied on reasons given by lower authorities in support of conclusion that business in question had been discontinued. We have considered rival submissions and facts on record. documents on record indicate that in order to be entitled to enter into transactions of bookmaking in particular racing season, person concerned has to apply for permission/licence to concerned club. On requisite deposits being made, he gets permission/licence to enter into those transactions. This permission/licence is to be obtained for every season year. assessee had applied for permission/licence for season 1977-78 (asst. yr. 1978-79). However, assessee gave second thought to matter. On 2nd Nov., 1977 he addressed letter to Secretary, R. W. I. T. C. Ltd., Poona, in which he mentioned that he had suffered heavy losses and as such he wanted to withdraw application for permission/licence made for season 1977-78. By letter dt. 15th Nov., 1977 he informed that he was not in position to raise funds for making necessary deposits. He expressed regret that after fifteen years he was put in such position. He then asserted as follows: "I will still however try and reapply for licence next year for Poona/Bombay and Bangalore season 1978-79". By letter dt. 20th Nov., 1977 sent to four employees who were employed on basis of remuneration per working day in racing season, he reiterated that he had to "suspend racing business temporarily" and that he would inform when he continued this business. He informed them that their names have been g o t registered with R. W. I. T. C. (Ltd.) and said registration should not be misused. assessee then applied for permission/licence on 6th May, 1981 and was granted permission/licence by letter dt. 27th July, 1981 and then all four employees were employed on monthly salaries. From above documents it is clear that lull had come in his business of Bookmaking and that he had not closed said business. What he had done was that he had suspended temporarily business transactions in business of Book-making because of financial difficulties. In circumstances of present case it must be held that business of Bookmaking remained dormant but was not closed and as such must be deemed to be continued. Only this that happened was that business transactions were not entered into because of financial difficulties. ITO has made reference to fact that in letter dt. 15th Nov., 1977 assessee has used expression "terminate my business". That portion reads as follows: "I find it impossible, therefore, to continue operating book for forthcoming Bombay Season 1977-78 and wish to terminate my business with immediate effect." ITO has stated that said expression indicated that business had come to end. We do not agree with this interpretation. This letter is not written by lawyer. It is written by lay businessman. Hence substance of what he says should be taken into account. correspondence should be read as whole. Immediately after above passage he has written as follows: "I will still, however, try and gather all my resources and hope that I may be in position to reapply for licence next year for Poona, Bombay and Bangalore Season 1978-79". This passage indicates that intention was to suspend business operations for short limited period and not close business for indefinite period. It is to be noted that assessee was not upshot into this business. He had spent long period of his life, fifteen years at stretch, in this business. He has emphasised in all letters that suspension is for limited period. His intention at relevant time was not to close business or discontinue indefinitely but to suspend temporarily so that he may pool his resources and resume operations. This is inference that emanates from facts on record. ld. CIT(A) has stated that his intention to resume business operations is wholly immaterial; what was material was whether systematic business activity continued in this year. We are unable to endorse wholly this approach to point in issue. If intention to resume within short period is expressed at time of suspension of business transactions, and if it is found that this intention is genuine, it would go to show that what had happened was suspension of business transactions and not closure of business itself particularly when subsequent events do indicate that business transactions were in fact resumed. Expression of above intention, and subsequent event, by itself in isolation may not be decisive; however, they taken together in conjunction with other circumstances would furnish adequate proof of fact that event in question was suspension of business transactions and not discontinuance of business. Another aspect to which ld. CIT(A) has referred is that since application for permission/licence had been withdrawn by assessee by letter dt. 2nd Nov., 1977, and since business in question could not be legally conducted without permission/licence, it should be presumed that business had not continued. We are unable to agree. inference whether business transactions remained suspended for temporary short period or whether business itself was discontinued would depend upon all circumstances taken together. If permission/licence was available without payment of large amount and yet if assessee decided not to obtain permission/licence, then inference could conceivably be drawn that intention was to discontinue business rather than suspend business transactions. However, in case where to obtain permission/licence, unusually large amount is required to be deposited and assessee is under temporary financial difficulty, his decision not to secure permission/licence for period for which business transactions are not intendeded to be entered into would not lead to inference that intention was to discontinue business. Even when only temporary suspension of business transactions is intended, businessman may as well in circumstances withdraw application for permission/licence. This is particularly so when omission to apply for particular year does not create any permanent disability to seek permission in subsequent year. As already stated, seeking permission/licence is recurring obligation for every year and as such when in particular year business transactions are not intend to be entered into, there is no need for assessee to secure permission/licence for that particular year. Similarly as regards employees, they were in relevant years employees on job basis they were paid for everyday on which races were held and as such since no business transactions were intended to be entered into for particular period, it was but natural that they would be discharged. If they had been full time employees and their services had been demolished by assessee which tended to show that business itself was discontinued. It is to be noted that these v e r y employees joined assessee when assessee obtained permission/licence in 1981. In context of peculiar facts of this case, discharge of said employees who had been employed on daily basis, would not be indicative of discontinuance of business and would not be inconsistent with temporary suspension of business transactions. It is to be noted that if non- obtaining of permission/licence is treated as decisive circumstances in favour of conclusion of discontinuance of business, it would mean that in business of this type, where permission/licence is required to be sought every year, there could never be any suspension of business transactions and there would always b e discontinuance of business even though in reality there is suspension of business transactions. Hence we find ourselves unable to agree with conclusion reached by ld. CIT(A). We are of opinion that circumstances relied on by CIT(A) to come to conclusion that this was case of discontinuance of business are consistent with continuance of business in sense of business remaining dormant for limited period while other circumstances to which we have referred in earlier part of our order lead to conclusion that this was case of continuance of business in which business transactions were suspended for temporary period due to acute financial difficulties. We are, therefore, of opinion that set off under s. 72 was allowable. We accordingly direct ITO to allow same. Before parting we may mention that learned counsel for assessee had raised alternate ground in course of arguments to effect that business of commission against profits to which set off of loss in bookmaking business is sought constituted same business as business of Bookmaking inasmuch as there was unity of management and control. Reliance was sought to be placed on certain decisions to which we need not refer. We are of opinion that assessee is not entitled to raise this ground before us which requires investigation into facts as this was never raised before either of two authorities below and there was no justifiable raison for not raising that point at earlier stage. We, therefore, decline premission to raise this point. appeal is allowed. *** MARCEL DA CUNHA v. SECOND INCOME TAX OFFICER