2009 (8) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Interest earned on refinancing operations deduction - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT is right in holding that interest earned on refinancing operations is to be excluded from the taxable interest? Held that - The assessee received income from interest on the loans advanced. Interest was passed on to IDBI and SIDBI under Refinancing Scheme. However, the said income was added to the income of the assessee. The CIT(A), held that interest paid to IDBI and SIDBI under Refinancing Scheme was permissible deduction ITAT confirmed the order of CIT(A) Held that - income earned by the assessee can be adjusted towards the interest paid to the IDBI and SIDBI under Refinancing Scheme appeal dismissed appeal was also dismissed on the ground of undue delay of 945 days in filing appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Income Tax Act regarding the treatment of interest earned on refinancing operations.
2. Delay in refiling the appeal and the application for condonation of delay.

Interpretation of the Income Tax Act regarding interest earned on refinancing operations:
The Revenue appealed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, questioning the treatment of interest earned on refinancing operations as taxable interest. The assessee received income from interest on loans advanced, which was then passed on to IDBI and SIDBI under a Refinancing Scheme. The CIT(A) held that the interest paid to IDBI and SIDBI under the Refinancing Scheme was a permissible deduction, relying on a judgment of the Kerala High Court. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, stating that the interest income earned by the assessee was adjustable towards the interest paid to IDBI and SIDBI. The High Court concurred with this view, citing consistency with the Kerala High Court judgment. Consequently, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in this regard.

Delay in refiling the appeal and application for condonation of delay:
The appeal faced a delay of 945 days in refiling, with the department attributing the delay to the inability to locate the case file after objections were raised by the court registry. The department sought condonation of the delay, claiming inadvertence and negligence as the reasons. However, the High Court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, deeming it as gross negligence. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, citing no valid grounds for condoning the delay and no merit for interference on the merits of the case.