TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Departmental Representative submitted that all the relevant facts relating to this ground of appeal are already on record and this is purely a legal issue, therefore, the Revenue should be allowed to raise this additional ground before the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S.S. Kalra, vehemently opposed the admission of the additional ground. He submitted that at the time of completing the assessment, the AO has not made addition by invoking the provisions of s. 69 of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot be placed in worst position than what he was before filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Even on merits, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no case for the Revenue to make s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that interest did not accrue prior to the date of maturity and, therefore, there was no income on account of accrued interest liable to be included in the block period. This is being agitated in appeal before us as the original ground relates to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 7,01,690 being accrued interest. 5. Now, the issue is whether the Department can be allowed to raise this plea about the taxability of the same under s. 69 of the IT Act, we are of the firm opinion that such ground cannot be admitted because addition has not been made under s. 69 of the IT Act. It is a settled position that the Tribunal is not competent to give a finding which is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd assessee does not acquire any right to receive any income prior to the date of maturity. The learned counsel contended that until the assessee acquires any right to receive income, no income can be said to have accrued to the assessee. Reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC), the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Tractor Co-op. Multipurpose Society Ltd. (1997) 142 CTR (P H) 20. Besides, it was also submitted that the amount of interest received on maturity was duly reflected in the return filed for block assessment. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in the case of Kantilal T. Sang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
