9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars, both these Tax Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common order. [2.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT in ITA No.2238/Ahd/2007 for AY 200405 and ITA No.2601/Ahd/2008 for AY 200001, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following common proposed question of law. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in remitting back the issue of workingout deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act while giving a finding that the fact that the loan was assigned transferred before 5 years from the date of sanction is not material?" [2.1] That the assessee filed the return of income for AY 200405 and 200001 claiming / working out the deduction u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igned before 5 years from the date of sanction or not. However, thereafter, the learned ITAT has remitted the matters to the learned Assessing Officer by specifically observing and directing as under: "We remit this issue to the file of the AO with a direction that he will verify the details of finance accounts, and if there is no change in the character of accounts i.e. their life span is more than five years, which continues even after assignment, then, interest income from those accounts up to the date of assignment would qualify for deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. These directions are subject to fulfillment of other conditions which are not disputed before us. The ld.AO shall also ensure th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant that as such the learned ITAT ought not to have remanded the matters to the learned Assessing Officer with the direction as recorded hereinabove. [4.0] We have heard Shri Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. At the outset it is required to be noted that even the question of law proposed by the Revenue is whether the learned ITAT is justified in remitting back the issue of working out deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the IT Act while giving the finding that the fact that the loan / advance was sanctioned before 5 years from the date of sanction is not material. No other question of law is proposed. [5.0] Having heard Shri Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then, the interest income from those accounts after the date of sanction would qualify for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act in the hands of the assessee. [5.2] Under the circumstances, the direction issued by the learned ITAT is very clear and seems to be absolutely in consonance with the explanation (h) to Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, when the entire issue is at large and the direction issued by the learned ITAT is very clear while remitting the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer, we see no reason to interfere with the same. It goes without saying that the learned Assessing Officer after giving an opportunity to the assessee shall consider the entire issue with respect to the work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
