2001 (9) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide order dated March 3, 1992. The assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated June 29, 2000, the appeal was accepted. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It maintains that the following question of law arises for conside ration of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing the claim of the assessee as interest receivable from sister concern and written off as irrecoverable being a sick unit without exhausting all efforts?" We have heard Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... On this basis, it has come to a firm finding of fact that the decision to 'waive the interest was taken by the assessee to safeguard its share capital of Rs.48 lakhs and the loan of Rs.67 lakhs, for which equal contribution was made by the assessee's collaborators". On this basis, the deduction was allowed. On a perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we hold that the deduction was rightly allowed. Mr. Sawhney contends that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to support the abovenoted finding. However, despite being asked, learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to refer to even an averment in the petition of appeal that the Tribunal had recorded the abovenoted finding without any material on record. In this situation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . In the present case, no facts have been placed on record or even pleaded in the petition of appeal which may indicate that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not based on the evidence produced in the case. No other point has been raised. Before parting with the case, we may observe that the respondent-assessee is a Government company. As is usual, it has itself suffered losses. Despite that it has tried to help another company in the joint sector so as to secure its own interests. If it is subjected to unwarranted tax, even the assessee may go sick. It would not promote any public interest. Thus, even in equity we find no ground to interfere. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X