TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent years, (a) 1968-69, and(b) 1969-70 ? " As the question indicates, the assessment years involved are assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the relevant previous years being the years ended June 30, 1967, and June 30, 1968, respectively. The assesses is a co-operative housing finance society engaged in the business of financing co-operative housing societies. The assessee derived income from its business of advancing loans to co-operative housing societies and it also derived income by way of interest from Govt. securities hold by it. In the course of its assessment to income-tax, for the relevant assessment years, the assessee claimed that since it was carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, the whole of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see was entitled to partial relief under s. 19(ii). The AAC worked out the proportionate interest payable to the LIC on the borrowings made for the purpose of investment in Govt. securities at 76% of the total interest paid and allowed a proportionate deduction against the interest income. On further appeal by the revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that no specific link was established between the borrowings from the LIC and the investments made in Govt. securities and that, as such, the AAC was in error in allowing, proportionate deduction. At the instance of the assessee, however, the Tribunal has stated a case in respect of the question set out above. Two submissions were made on behalf of the for our consideration; first, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt alive by preferment of an appeal. Apart from the assessee having not preferred an appeal against such decision, implied or express, of the AAC, no attempt was made on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal to support the order ad the AAC granting relief under s. 19(ii) on an alternative footing, namely, that having regard to the provisions of s. 80P(2)(a)(i), the proportionate deduction allowed should not at least be disturbed. The result, therefore, is that the controversy between the revenue and the assessee founded on the claim based on the provisions of s. 80P(2)(a)(i) was not reflected in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, we do not think it is open to the assessee to raise the said question for our c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
