TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious years, as the order dated 27.10.2008 was silent on that question - The ITAT has not made any findings in the order, let alone determined or discussed any issue of fact or law relevant to the assessment of interest income in the case – no substantial question of law arises for adjudication – Decided against Assessee. - ITA 284/2013 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Appellant : None For the Respondents : Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. ORDER Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) 1. Even after second call, no one has appeared for the appellant. Learned counsel for the Revenue is present. The matter has been taken up for hearing. 2. This is an appeal under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pheld the order of the AO. This was again carried in appeal to the ITAT, leading to the impugned order. 4. The gist of the assessee s contentions is that in the preceding AY, 1997-98, the interest on the FDRs pledged with the banks was considered by the AO to be income from business . However, in the course of that assessment, although the interest was held to be business income , netting was disallowed. The CIT (Appeals) in that year allowed netting of interest. The matter subsequently went in appeal to the ITAT and finally this Court. This Court, in its order dated 19.1.2007, held that: [i]t was correctly noted by the ITAT that the AO having accepted the interest income as business income, the only question that required consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue in question. With the above observations, we restore the entire appeal to the file of the learned Assessing Officer and allow the same for statistical purposes. We are refraining from making any observation on the legal fact whether the decision of Shri Ram Honda (supra) covers and (sic) don t cover the facts and issues of the case. 7. The ITAT, therefore, has not gone into the merits of the case, nor the issue of consistency as alleged by the assessee or the applicability of the decision in Shri Ram Honda (supra). The AO had in the second round of assessment in the order under Section 143(3) dated 27.10.2008 not discussed the applicability of the decision in Shri Ram Honda (supra), as required by the terms of the remand in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
