TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not out of chargeable income. The action of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) vide order, dt. 29th Sept., 1994. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee Mr. Khandelwal has submitted before us that assessee had taxable income of Rs. 1,80,260 out of which loan of Rs. 1,35,000 had been given to Pathak Trust. Since the assessee could not get the money back from the said trust, he took loan of Rs. 50,000 from his brother Shri N.D. Pathak for making aforesaid investments. In this connection, he drew our attention to the letter of the assessee dt. 15th March, 1993, written to the trustee of the Pathak Trust requesting to refund the sum of Rs. 50,000. This letter appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered carefully. We have also gone through the provisions of s. 88. Sub-s. (2) provides in clear terms that deduction under s. 88(1) shall be allowed only if the investment is made by the assessee out of his income chargeable to tax. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that plain language of the section is to be given effect to and nothing can be added or subtracted if the language of the provision is plain, clear and unambiguous. It is only where the provisions are ambiguous, the aid of the rules of interpretation is resorted to. It is also well settled legal position that any interpretation which makes the provision redundant should be avoided. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Keshavji ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under s. 88 can be allowed. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. Usharani Panda (1995) 129 CTR (Ori) 388 : (1995) 212 ITR 119 (Ori), the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abraham George (2000) 158 CTR (Ker) 526 : (2000) 242 ITR 171 (Ker) and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of S. Inder Singh Gill vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 284 (Bom). In the case before the Bombay High Court, the assessee had claimed exemption from tax under s. 15(1) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, against the sum paid for LIC out of his foreign income which was not assessable to income-tax in India. The claim was rejected by the AO and finally the Bombay High Court approved the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected on the ground that investment was not made out of accumulated salary income. The facts of that case are entirely different. In the case before the Punjab Haryana High Court, the amount of LIC was paid after withdrawing the amount from his account with a private limited company. Since the deposit with the private limited company was out of income chargeable to tax, though of previous years, the claim was held to be allowable. That case also does not help the assessee because the amount was paid out of the income chargeable to tax. No doubt, the decision of the Tribunal reported as 57 TTJ 532 helps the assessee. But in our opinion, the same is contrary to the legal position mentioned by us above. In view of the above discussion, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
