9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant that the books of the Assessee ever revealed the diversion of any interest income. Had that been so something could have been said. The other argument raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal wrongly invoked Section 10 (23BBA) of the Act and the invocation of that Section completely blind-sided the Tribunal into taking a wrong decision. Assessee never claimed any exemption u/s 10 (23BBA) and in the circumstances, the only thing which can be held is that reference to Section 10 (23BBA) by the Tribunal was surplusage and was not required in view of the basic finding of fact that the income which accrued to the Assessee from the funds of the Government which were released to it were not diverted by it and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment. 3. The primary grounds which weighed with the Assessing Officer to hold otherwise were, firstly that the Assessee was not able to show that it had ever returned the interest to the Government; secondly no such stipulation was there in the notification releasing the funds; thirdly the Assessee was not a Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956; fourthly that even in the hands of the Government it would be a revenue receipt and fifthly that the accrual of this interest can not be taken to be a casual income. 4. In our considered opinion, the findings of the Assessing Officer are conjectural. Instead of saying that the interest income has been utilized by the Assessee on its own free will, the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot so. 8. The argument that there is no such stipulation in the letter releasing the grant does not lead to the automatic conclusion that the interest is income of the Assessee. It is not the case of the appellant that the books of the Assessee ever revealed the diversion of any interest income. Had that been so something could have been said. The other argument raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal wrongly invoked Section 10 (23BBA) of the Act and the invocation of that Section completely blind-sided the Tribunal into taking a wrong decision. 9. It would be pertinent to note that there is dispute raised by the counsel for the appellant against finding recorded by the Tribunal in para 11 of its order. The releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
