9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of admitting this Appeal, following question of law was framed:- "Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the interest of Rs. 10,08,191/- was rightly disallowed under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even when the interest for the same borrowing has been allowed in the immediately preceding year?" 3. Mr.Manish Shah, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the issue identical to the issue involved in this appeal came up before this Court in the case of the same assessee in Tax Appeal No.20 of 2004 and this Court has answered the issue in favour of the assesse. He submitted that, therefore, the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court and prayed that this appeal may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,19,635/. 2.1. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The CIT(A) partly allowed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.01.2003 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, this appeal is filed at the instance of assessee. 3. While admitting this appeal on 11.08.2003, the Court had formulated the following question of law:- Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of Rs. 3,81,924/was rightly disallowed under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even when the interest on the same bor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier assessment which is accepted cannot be treated as rejudicata. 5.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Savera, reported in 239 ITR 795. He also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay CityIII, reported in 114 ITR, 645. 6. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record. In our view, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sridev Enterprises(supra) is directly on the issue posed in this appeal. It is necessary to reproduce relevant paragraph of the above decision, which reads as under: We are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a particular year cannot be subsequently be held by it to have become bad prior to that year. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the issue involved in this appeal is already concluded by the above decision. In the above decision, it has been categorically held that it would not be equitable to permit the revenue to take a different stand subsequently in respect of the amounts which were the subject matter of previous years assessment. In our view, once the interest is allowed in the previous year and if there is no change in the condition then it can be disallowed in the current years assessment. Accordingly, the question which is posed in this appeal requires to be answered in favour of the assessee and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
