9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Classification of interest income as business income or income from other sources. 3. Admissibility of deduction under section 80HHC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147/148: The additional ground of appeal concerns the validity of the notice issued under sections 147/148. The assessee argued that the reopening of the assessment was based on a transaction with M/s. Manoj Diamonds, which was found to be valid, and not on account of interest. The assessee contended that all material facts were disclosed with the return, making the reopening invalid. The Tribunal examined the reasons for the notice issuance, which were based on a letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 19(2), Mumbai. The letter indicated that M/s. Manoj Diamond did not perform any labour work for the assessee, suggesting hawala activities. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, fulfilling the conditions under section 147. The Tribunal held that the legality of the notice should be judged based on materials available at the time of initiation, not subsequent events. The Assessing Officer had the authority to tax any other escaped income noticed during reassessment proceedings, even if it was not the reason for the initial notice. The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground of appeal, affirming the validity of the notice under section 147. 2. Classification of Interest Income: The assessee argued that interest income from fixed deposits and loans should be classified as business income, as the deposits were kept to avail credit facilities for the export business. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) classified the interest income as income from other sources, excluding it from the computation of deduction under section 80HHC. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been extensively litigated and cited relevant case law, including decisions from the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue for re-examination, directing the CIT(A) to consider the admissibility of deduction under section 80HHC in light of relevant decisions and after providing an opportunity for hearing to both parties. 3. Admissibility of Deduction under Section 80HHC: The main grounds of appeal were interlinked with the classification of interest income. The assessee contended that the entire income should be considered as profit of the business for the assessment year 1991-92, as the law was amended to exclude 90% of the interest from the assessment year 1992-93 onwards. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the admissibility of deduction under section 80HHC, considering the relevant case law and decisions, and to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing to both parties. The Tribunal allowed the main grounds of appeal for statistical purposes, pending re-examination by the CIT(A). In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94, directing the CIT(A) to re-examine the issues related to the classification of interest income and the admissibility of deduction under section 80HHC. The additional ground of appeal regarding the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 was dismissed, affirming the validity of the notice.
|
