TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee and whether the same were part parcel of business activities. The same is evident from the fact that Ld. AO, in all the years, had accepted interest on FDR as Business Income only. Rather the point of dispute was whether the assessee was eligible for deduction on interest on FDR within four corners of Sec. 80-IA or not. In fact, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IA even on interest on Income Tax refund which is ultimately assessed as Income from Other Sources . Therefore, the fact that FDRs were kept out of commercial expediency and the same was part and parcel of business activities was not under dispute. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IA on interest on FDRs which was assessed as Business Income and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same were not cited during the hearing of the appeal. Therefore, non consideration of these decisions would not make the order erroneous which would call for any interference in terms of mandate of Section 254(2). We find that the provisions of Section 254(2) have narrow application and envisage rectification of mistakes which are apparent from record. There is power to rectify but not to review the order. The arguments of Ld. Sr. Counsel, if accepted, would amount to review of the order which is impermissible. - MA No.283/Mum/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.300/Mum/2018) - - - Dated:- 27-4-2021 - HON BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM AND HON BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Assessee by : Shri Porus F. Kaka- Ld. Sr. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from FDs as business income. The assessee was engaged only in one business of developing, operating and maintaining port terminals. The intent to park the funds in the FDs was to secure the funds so that the assessee could fulfill its future obligations under the agreement. The income earned there-from was directly linked and / or incidental to the core business of the assessee. Therefore, it was claimed that the interest income was eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA. Since, this critical fact was not considered, the order deserve to be recalled. 2.2 The Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in para-4.6 of the order in the case of CIT V/s Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. (CA No.2817 of 2010 26/03/2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by Hon ble Supreme Court. It has been submitted that similar is the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in Arul Mariammal Textiles Ltd. (97 Taxmann.com 298). 2.3 In the above background, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that Tribunal ought to have granted an opportunity to the assessee to rebut the decision which was not cited by either of the parties and whose principles have subsequently been distinguished. The assessee could have distinguished the unreported decision of Eltek SGS P. Ltd. (supra) if an opportunity was provided to the assessee. The failure to do so run contrary to established principles of natural justice and fair trial / hearing. 2.4 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the order could not be reviewed u/s 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the order, in any manner. 4. So far as the case laws are concerned, the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in Liberty India Ltd. (317 ITR 218) was rendered on 31/08/2009 and it was concerned with deduction of DEPB Credit / duty drawback in the context of Sec.80-IB read with Sections 80-I and 80- IA. A principle was laid down therein that the words derived from is narrower connotation as compared to the words attributable to and by using the words derived from , the parliament intended to cover sources not beyond the first degree. During the course of hearing of the appeal, Ld. Sr. Counsel primarily relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. (169 Taxman 283) which was rendered on 19/02/2008. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the bench that the arguments draw strength from the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. (supra; dated 19/02/2008). It was noted that this case law stood reversed by Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2817 of 2010 decision dated 26/03/2010 and therefore, the ratio of this decision was no longer applicable. Consequently, the reliance on the stated decisions of Hon ble Bombay High Court was not correct and hence the adjudication by the bench. The Ld. Sr. Counsel, during hearing of application, argued that the case law of Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. was distinguishable which could not be accepted in view of the fact that the ratio of this very decision has been applied by Hon ble Bombay High court in the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
