TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 18,224 received by the, assessee could not constitute income of the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 ? " The relevant facts for answering this question as found by the Tribunal are as follows : "In these grounds, the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upholding the disallowance made by the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank Ltd., Calcutta, As the total amount in deposit was less than Rs. 25,000, no interest had been received by the assessee. It was stated that subsequently the average adjusters had recommended a refund of Rs. 7,257-76, which was in excess of the final amount of contribution. The assessee has stated that from the deposit balance of Rs. 18,223, if the amount refundable of Rs. 7,257 was deducted, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n reliance was placed on the decision in CIT v. Sandersons Morgans [1970] 75 I TR 433 (Cal) and also the decision in Bijli Cotton Mill (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 400 (All). We have considered the rival submissions. The amount of Rs. 18,224 received by the assessee in this year was clearly in the nature of a security deposit and was held by the assessee in a separate joint trust account. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat from the deposit balance of Rs. 18.223, if the amount refundable of Rs. 7,257 was deducted the income which accrued in 1964-65, when the final report of the adjusters was finalised, was Rs. 10,966. If anything out of the amount that was allowed in the computation of the income of the assessee for the year 1964-65 was refunded then the revenue will be entitled in law to adjust such computatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
