9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Tribunal was justified in law and on the facts to delete addition of Rs. 8,43,660/- coming under sec. 36(I)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 1.99 crore was invested by the assessee from the cash credit account for purchasing shares by transferring the aforesaid sum to the account of Aryan Energy Pvt. Ltd. It is also not in dispute that on account of transactions in the cash credit account a sum of Rs. 3,99,553/- was debited towards interest. Question arose whether the interest incurred or paid by the assessee is deductible from the taxable income. The learned Tribunal has answered the question as follows: "Considering the totality of the facts of the case and relying on the decisions cited ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e money borrowed from United Bank of India was not spent for the purpose of purchasing the shares. Since the assessee did not discharge his obligation, the Assessing Officer had refused to allow the deduction. Without applying mind, the learned Tribunal upheld the contention of the assessee. We, therefore, propose to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. Ms. Gutgutia, learned Advocate for the appellant however submitted that there is no reason why the matter should be remanded. She relied upon a judgment of this Court to which one of us (G.C. Gupta,J.) was a party in the case of CIT vs. RKBK Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2013) 358 ITR 228 (Cal). What had happened in that case was that the Commissioner of Income Tax had exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest paid for the purpose of earning the dividend income which the assessee did not do. The assessee, as such, did not discharge its burden and, therefore, the assessee could not have claimed that only a sum of Rs. 1,33,51,132/- was relatable to interest paid for the purpose of earning the exempt income. There was, as such, reason enough to hold that the assessment was erroneous and was also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue." We fail to understand how does the judgment relied upon by Ms. Gutgutia militate against the measure we propose to adopt. In the aforesaid case, the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of power under section 263 of the I.T. Act had directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after making appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
