TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be seen because even for a past history there is a starting point. It is an admitted fact that the other members of the family are also doing the same systematic and organized activity of earning such interest income, therefore, there is no reason to deny the benefit, if any, to the present assessee. Since we have discussed the issue in detail in the preceding paras of this order, this ground of the revenue is also having no merit, therefore, dismissed Once it has been held that the income of the assessee was to be assessed under the head income from business or profession, the assessee was thus entitled to set off against carry forward losses. The Tribunal was justified in allowing the same. Even for the subsequent assessment year i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a total income of ₹ 21,68,094/-. The income from interest was assessed by the Assessing Officer under the head income from other sources and brought forward business losses were not allowed to be set off against this income. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 28.3.2008, Annexure A.II, the Assessing officer treated the interest income as income from business and also allowed the set off of the brought forward losses amounting to ₹ 17,50,833/-. The revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 31.7.2008, Annexure A.III, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be observed to reach a logical conclusion. As per information supplied by the assessee himself, during the preceding assessment year, he was engaged in the business of money lending. He had shown an income of ₹ 18,18,134/- from that business for the assessment year 2004-05. It may not be out of place to mention that during that year also, he was the only working partner of M/s R.K.Cloth Mills. For the succeeding assessment year i.e. assessment year 2005-06 again the assessee has done the business of money lending and has shown an income of ₹ 11,36,678/- from that business. However, during the current assessment year such business of money lending was not carried out by the assessee. Instead he devoted his time to purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the revenue in treating the income earned from money lending as business income, therefore, is identical to the ground raised in the above appeal. The only difference in the present appeal is that there was no interest income in earlier years meaning thereby there is no past history of the present assessee. However, it was argued that the assessee belongs to the same family and lending started during the impugned year only. During argument, learned counsel form both sides agreed to the effect that this is the first year of lending money and consequent earning therefrom and also that the present assessee is also from the same family. After hearing the rival submissions and on perusal of record, we are of the view that even a single or i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
