TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of the dividends less tax deducted therefrom in the foreign countries (hereinafter referred to as " the net dividends "). Another claim of the assessee was that the amount due from Chingrihata Bone Mills (P.) Ltd. amounting to Rs. 2,53,484 and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 49,132, which was written off, should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income. , The ITO, however, did not accept either of these two claims. The assessee-company was aggrieved with the assessment order and, therefore, went up in appeal before the AAC. The AAC together with other reliefs accepted the claim of the assessee-company on both of these points. The Department was aggrieved with the order of the AAC on these two issues and, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions of law : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,53,484 due from M/s. Chingrihata Bone Mills (P.) Ltd. and written off during the previous year was not an admissible deduction in working out the assessee's income from business under the I.T. Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that interest of Rs. 49,132 on the amount due from M/s. Chingrihata Bone Mills (P.) Ltd., which was written off during the previous year, was not an allowable deduction in working out the income from business under the I.T. Act, 1961 ? So far as the first question rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the Revenue, it has been contended that the loan was given not in course of trading operation nor is it incidental to the trading operation of the company. It has also been argued that the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is a finding of fact and reference has been made to several decisions in support of this contention. Reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 67 (SC), and also in the case of Amarchand Sobhachand v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 591 (SC). It was argued that the finding of the Tribunal that the amounts were not lent in course of the assessee's money-lending business was a finding of fact and it was not binding on the court. It was further contended on the strengt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it did not adjust the loan account against the purchase because of the financial difficulties of Chingrihata Bone Mills (P.) Ltd. and because the assessee was interested in the course of its business in getting regular supply from Chingrihata Bone Mills (P.) Ltd., was an argument which was not advanced before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, in the interest of justice, we should remand the case to the Tribunal for going into this question and decide this point according to law, and for this purpose both the assessee and the Revenue will, be entitled to adduce evidence before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will be entitled to consider the matter afresh. So far as the first question raised by the assessee is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
