TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeciati0on schedule to substantiate the claim of the assessee, and in the absence of any evidence to show that depreciation has been wrongly calculated or the exact depreciation schedule, rejected the contention of the assessee and upholding the action of the assessing officer. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the assessing officer has not taken into account the revised computation filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, and the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the assessing officer in the absence of depreciation schedule or any evidence produced before him to substantiate the claim of the assessee, we find it just and proper to set aside the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Madras High Court itself recognized that the Chit Fund Scheme is a kind of saving scheme. Thus, the discount,/dividend credited to the account of the non-bidders is an advantage/profit of a financial nature. Accordingly, the chit discount/dividend fits in the definition of interest defined in Black S. Law Dictionary and squarely falls within the four corners of Section 2(28A) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements, which are in favour of Revenue. a) Viswapriya Financial Services Ltd. Vs. CIT( 258 ITR 496)-Mad b) Bhagavathi Ammal Lakshmi Ammal Vs. M.Venkatasubba Iyer (Hon ble High Court of Travancore ) ***** c) Janata Agencies (P)Ltd Vs. ITO (1 ITD 321)-Bom. 4 . (***** citation not given) 3. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has been affirmed by the Apex Court in 299 ITR 1, held that the payment of dividend to the subscribers of a chit towards dividend does not partake the character of interest and accordingly, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS under S.194A of the Act, and not liable to interest u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 5. Following the above decision of the Hyderabad Bench B of this Tribunal, to which both of us are members, in the cases of M/s. Vinutna Chit Funds (P) Ltd.(ITA Nos.1280-1281/Hyd/2011 for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08), vide order dated 31.10.2011, held that the assessee-company in those cases is not liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194A of the Act and not liable for interest u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments (P)Ltd.(288 ITR 39), and hold that the dividend distributed by the assessee herein does not partake the character of interest , and consequently, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source. 8. We are fortified in following the consistent view taken by the decision in similar matters by the ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s. L.G.Ramamurthy and Others (110 ITR 453), wherein emphasizing the necessity of uniform conclusion on same matter, and scope of adjudication by a Tribunal, it has been held by the Hon ble High Court as follows- No Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another Bench of the same Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia) of the Act.. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 9. Now turning to the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, we may note at the outset, that there is a delay of 143 days in filing the same by the assessee. Assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay. We are convinced with the reasonableness of the cause for the delay. We accordingly condone the same and proceed to dispose of, the Cross-Objection on merits. 10. The only effective grievance of the assessee in its cross objection is that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the ground of appeal of the assessee on the point that the assessing officer erred in not considering income from business at ₹ 69,18,98 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y calculated or the exact depreciation schedule, rejected the contention of the assessee and upholding the action of the assessing officer. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the assessing officer has not taken into account the revised computation filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, and the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the assessing officer in the absence of depreciation schedule or any evidence produced before him to substantiate the claim of the assessee, we find it just and proper to set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue, and restore the matter to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to examine the same afre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
