2015 (10) TMI 1748 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - interest from money lending income is business income and not income from other sources which is the only reason for the very issuance of notice under section 148 - Held that - In view of judgment of Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ludhiana vs. Smt.Pushpa Gupta (2015 (10) TMI 1741 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) deciding the issue by holding that the income derived by the assessee was assessable under the head Income from business or profession the appeals have been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
2. Classification of income from interest from money lending as business income or income from other sources
3. Applicability of judgments related to similar cases

Issue 1: Validity of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The appellant, engaged in trading of shares, debentures, and mutual funds, also had interest income from money lending. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act in 2006, directing the appellant to file a return of income. The appellant contended that the income from money lending was business income, not income from other sources. The Assessing Officer, however, treated it as income from other sources in the assessment order. The CIT(A) later classified the interest income from money lending as business income but upheld the notice under section 148. The Tribunal confirmed the treatment of interest income as business income but also upheld the issuance of the notice. The appellant challenged this decision, questioning the justification of the notice under section 148.

Issue 2: Classification of income from interest from money lending
The appellant argued that the income from interest from money lending should be considered business income, as declared in the return of income. The Assessing Officer treated it as income from other sources, which was later corrected by the CIT(A) to classify it as business income. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) on this classification. The primary contention revolved around the proper classification of this income, with the appellant maintaining that it should be categorized as business income.

Issue 3: Applicability of judgments related to similar cases
The appellant cited a judgment in a similar case, Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ludhiana vs. Smt. Pushpa Gupta, which determined that income derived by the assessee was assessable under the head 'Income from business or profession.' Based on this judgment, the appellant argued that the appeals in the present case had become infructuous. Consequently, the appellant requested the disposal of the appeals in light of the judgment in the aforementioned case. The court, considering the precedent, disposed of the appeals accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the validity of the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the classification of income from interest from money lending, and the applicability of judgments related to similar cases. The court's decision was influenced by the classification of income as business income in a related case, leading to the disposal of the appeals.