TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is point of time on the questions of law raised above, since we find that the Tribunal had failed to go into the relevant portion of the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) and come to a definite finding as to which view, i.e., whether the view of the Assessing Officer or the view of the CIT (Appeals), in regard to bringing the interest income earned from money lending business under appropriate head, is right on the facts of the present case. Thus the Tribunal has not decided the issue on facts and, therefore, no question of law arises for this Court to consider at this juncture. Accordingly, this Court remands the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the issue afresh on the basis of the materials available on record. - Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand. - T.C.A. NO. 1182 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2015 - R.Sudhakar And R.Karuppiah JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Philip George For the Respondents : Mr. T.R.Senthil Kumar Judgment (DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR, J.) Mr. T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondent/Department is directed to take notice for the respondent/Department. 2. Aggrieved by the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee in the P L A/c should not be treated as income from the other sources and why the benefit u/s 80HHC should not be disallowed on the interest income as interest income is not derived from export business. The authorised representative of the assessee stated that money lending is one of the business activity of the firm. The firm received interest from various banks on the deposits and also interest from various parties. Therefore he stated that this should be treated as business income. The explanation of the authorised representative is considered. Here the question whether the interest income received by the assessee is profit from the export business or not for the purpose of 80HHC. The explanation of the authorised representative is not acceptable in view of the following decisions :- 1) ITAT A Bench, Madras decision in ITA No.2680/Mds/94 dated 7.11.2000 for the assessment year 1991-92. 2) Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT - Vs - Pandian Chemicals Limited (233 ITR 497). 3) Kerala High Court decision in the case of Nanji Topanbhai Co. - Vs - Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (243 ITR 192). 4) Madras High Court decision in the case of South ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs - Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992 (198) ITR 297) and held in favour of the appellant/assessee. The relevant portion of the order of the CIT (Appeals) is quoted hereinbelow for better clarity :- Therefore, adopting the approach enunciated by the decision of Sun Engineering Work (P) Ltd. - Vs - CIT (198 ITR 297) it can be stated that the decisions relied upon by the assessing officer has to be read in the context of what is stated just prior thereto. The Courts have said that if an assessee is not engaged in the business of advancing money for earning interest the income so earned will be treated as ' Income from Other Sources'. Whereas if the assessee is engaged in the business of advancing money the interest so received will be assessable as Business Income only. It is also a fact that in the business of money lending the money is stock in trade and exploitation of stock in trade in any manner, if results in any income will be Business Income . This view is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.E.P.T. - Vs - Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (20 ITR 451). During the course of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will have to be reduced for computation of deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with the provisions of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. The assessee should be given adequate opportunity or being heard. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee/appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/assessee vehemently contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that no finding has been given by the authorities below as to whether the interest income could be treated as business income or not. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that there is a clear finding by the CIT (Appeals) that the interest earned by the assessee is business income, as it is evident from the record that the assessee is in the business of money lending for several years and the same has also been accepted by the department. Further, it is urged that the activity of advancing money for earning interest constitutes business income and all the ingredients for treating the interest earned from money lending business as business income are satisfied in this case. Further, the assessee had been carrying on the busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
