Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (10) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A.Y. 1992-93, which are admitted by this court to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the accrued interest added by the Assessing Officer, when amounts were advanced by the Assessee to Shri Budh Holdings & Trading Co. (P) Ltd and Shri Bahi & Co. (P) Ltd. and when the Assessee was maintaining Mercantile System of Accounting ?" 2. The brief facts of Tax Appeal No. 11 of 2002 are that the return of income is filed on 31.12.1992 declaring loss of Rs. 1,62,337. The return has been processed under sec. 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 on 16.3.1993 and refund of Rs. 1,080/- is adjusted against the demand of A.Y. 1985-86. The assessee has disclosed dividend income .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and interest. It is found that the assessee has disclosed interest income at Rs. 4,20,501. On verification of details, it is found that the assessee has advanced Rs. 12,11,937/- to Shri Bahel & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 16,36,116/- to Shri Budh Holding & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. The opening balance as per copies of accounts filed remains consistent through out the year. The assessee is entitled to interest at the rate of 15%p.a. In view of this, the assessee is entitled to receive an interest of Rs. 1,81,790/- in the case of Shri Bahel & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Rs. 2,45,117/- in the case of Shri Buddh Holding & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. As against this, the assessee has disclosed interest receivable at Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs. 2,02,500/- respectively from the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. 6. The learned advocate Mr. Bhatt appearing for the appellant-Revenue has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not accepting the concurrent finding of the A.O. and CIT(A), wherein, the addition made by the A.O. was accepted. It is also contended that in view of mercantile system adopted by the assessee, the reasons given in para-6 at page - 32 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are just and proper and the appeals are rightly dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad. Para-6 reads as under: "6. I have carefully considered the above. Certain peculiar features emerge from the submissions made by the assessee. The assessee is an inve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,44,246 (Incl. TDS 30291) 1,45,356 (Incl. TDS 30292) 1990-91 2,19,593.25 (Incl. TDS 47432) 2,02,500 (Incl. TDS 47432) 1991-92 2,02,500 (Incl. TDS 46575) 2,02,500 Incl. TDS 46575) Shri Bahl & Co. Pvt.Ltd. 1989-90 1,06,849.27 (Incl. TDS 35135) 1,50,000 (Incl. TDS 35135) 1990-91 1,80,000 (Incl. TDS 41400) 1,50,000 (Incl. TDS 41400) 1991-92 Nil Nil 1992-93 13,50,537.65 13,08,698 Closing Balance     7. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal while considering the appeal, has not treated the appeal as appeal but treated as if it is under original jurisdiction. He has relied upon two decisions; one decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commission .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e is nothing on record to suggest that the aforesaid order dated April 16, 1990, in the case of Sercon P. Ltd. has been challenged further, the order made by the apex court in the case of Union of India vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalai [2001] 249 ITR 219 (SC), wherein, it is held that "it is not open to the Revenue to accept the judgment in the case of one assessee and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessee without just cause" applies with full force. No distinguishing feature has been pointed out and hence in the absence of any just cause the question referred to the court requires to be answered in the affirmative upholding the view taken by the Tribunal considering the fact that in the case of Sercon P. Ltd. similar issue sta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates