TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the years requesting the ITO to give credit for taxes deducted at source on the amount of interest shown to have been received from D.C. Metha others. The ITO noticing that interest from D.C. Metha others for the two years under consideration amounting to Rs. 17,507 and 15,382 respectively had not been shown by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings, he resorted to re-assessment proceedings under s. 147(a) and subjected the said amounts to tax respectively in the two years under consideration. When the matter was carried by the assessee before the CIT(A) he not only confirmed the action of the ITO regarding initiation of proceedings under s. 147(a), but also confirmed the addition on account of interest in both the ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of interest for the first year under consideration and Rs. 15,382 similarly for the second year. The assessee on one hand debited the account of D.C. Metha Others whereas credited the account of M/s Trade Impex P. Ltd., the sister concern in respect of the very paid amounts on the other hand. The ld. authorised representative for the assessee submitted that there was no interest received by the assessee and if any received, was not taxable or includible in the total income of the assessee because a similar amount which was receivable from M/s. D.C Metha Others was payable by the assessee to Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd and through them to Bank of India. 3. The respect of s. 147(a) proceedings as well the authorised representative for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to accept the contention of the authorised representative for the assessee that information pertaining to a fact by Audit was not good enough to warrant initiation of proceedings under s. 147(a) because the Supreme Court decision reported in Indian Eastern Newspapers Society vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) 190 could help the assessee if the information given by the Audit party would have been in respect of any legal matter. According to us, the attempt of the authorised representative for the two years under consideration that could not be taxed is a legal matter, which will be little too much to stretch to bring the claim of the assessee under the ratio of the Supreme Court decision. However, on merits, we accept the contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
