9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 12-8-2011 - Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Mr. Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Mr. C.S. Das. For the Respondent: Mr. Dipak Kumar Shome, Mrs. Asha Gourisaria. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is at the instance of an assessee, and is directed against an order dated June 13, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Kolkata, in Income-tax (SS) Appeal No.36 (Kol) of 2000 for the Block Period from 1992-93 to 1997-98 and thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. The facts giving rise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of Rs.4 lac in terms of the said agreement by December 2, 1996 with interest @ 18% per annum. d) According to the appellant, the said firm did not pay the said sum of Rs.4 lac to the appellant within the financial year ending on March 31, 1997 and in the account for the said financial year, the said sum of Rs.4 lac was reduced from the cost of work-in-progress relating to the project and an identical amount together with interest of Rs.18,000/- was shown as receivable from the said fund. e) According to the appellant, the said firm had also shown the said sum of Rs.4 lac together with interest of Rs.18,000/- as payable to the appellant during the financial year ending on March 31, 1997. The appellant further claimed that in the fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) and before the said authority the appellant specifically referred to the agreement with the said firm. The appellant also referred to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the circumstances and consequently by an order dated September 6, 2000 the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the appellant and held that the sum of Rs.4 lac could not be considered in the appellant s block assessment and the matter was required to be examined in the subsequent year. j) Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. k) The Tribunal by an order dated June 13, 2003 allowed the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but to Mr. Parikh, one of its Directors, and as such, the authorities below committed substantial error of law in treating the amount to be payable to the assessee. The additional point formulated by this bench is quoted below: In view of the fact that the promissory note in question mentioned that the amount is allegedly payable to Sri Dinesh B. Parikh (Director Status Home Enclaves (P) Ltd.), whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that the said amount was payable to Status Home Enclaves (P) Ltd., the assessee in this appeal. Mr. Khaitan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has, strenuously contended before us that the Tribunal below erred in law in not taking in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us. The promissory note is quoted below: On Demand we M/s. THAKKAR CONSTTRUCTION promise to pay to Shri Dinesh B. Parikh (Director Status Home Enclaves P. Ltd.) a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs) only being the premium amount for development agreement dated 04-04-1996. The amount will be payable latest by 02-12-1996 alongwith an interest at 18% (Eighteen per cent per annum) till the date of payment. On a plain reading of the said promissory note, it appears that on demand M/s. Thakkar Construction promised to pay to Sri Dinesh B. Parikh who was described as a Director of the appellant, a sum of Rs.4 lac being the premium amount for development agreement dated 4th April, 1996 and that the amount should be payabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
