TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he interest credited to the P&L account and the interest receivable, collected and handed over to the firm by the Company; whether they are one and the same. This is essentially a question of fact and the assessing officer will examine whether there was a duplication in so far as the addition made. We hence refuse to answer the questions of law for reason of there existing a warrant for further examination of the figures as revealed from the P&L Account. We remand the matter for verification of this single aspect. - ITA. No. 196 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2019 - MR K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The Appellant : ADVS. SRI. T. M. SREEDHARAN (SR. ) SMT. BOBY M. SEKHAR AND SRI. V. P. NARAYANAN For The Respondent : AD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Tribunal disputed herein legally valid and sustainable on the facts and in law? 2. All the questions of law concern one single credit made by the Assessing Officer of an amount of ₹ 66,09,167/-. There were other additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were interfered with by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal also confirmed such order of the First Appellate Authority. The interference by the Tribunal in an appeal filed by the Revenue was only with respect to the interest receivable of ₹ 66,09,167/-. 3. The assessment completed was for the year 2005-2006, when the assessee firm had been taken over by a Company, M/s.Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. The take over was on consideration paid to the firm. We are onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition made by the Assessing Officer is ₹ 66,09,167/-. Further, we also notice a Certificate produced by the Chattered Accountant as seen at Annexure-F. Therein it is stated that ₹ 65,95,681.19 has been offered as interest receivable on gold loan in the account of the assessee firm for the year ending 31.03.2005. It is also stated that this amount represents interest collected by the Company on take over of the business of the firm. Further, it is stated that the Company had taken over from the firm an amount of ₹ 66,09,167/- as interest receivable, which was later collected and handed over to the firm by the Company. Hence the duplication is not in the Assessing Officer having made the addition, but in the Company hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
