Appeal allowed for statistical purposes, case remanded for re-examination. Nature of receipt to be considered.

The ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the case back to the AO for re-examination. The AO was instructed to consider the nature of the receipt in light of the case laws cited and additional evidence provided by the assessee. The ITAT emphasized the importance of establishing a direct nexus between the interest income from Fixed Deposits and the business activities to determine whether it should be treated as business income or income from 'Other Sources'.

---

---

Issues:
Characterization of interest income from Fixed Deposits in connection with Contract business as income from 'Other sources' instead of income from 'Business'.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2015-16. The dispute revolved around the treatment of interest income from Fixed Deposits (FDRs) made in connection with the Contract business. The AO noted a discrepancy in the income declared by the assessee and the actual receipts. The AO observed that the interest income of Rs. 5,45,973/- from FDRs was not reflected in the income tax return of the assessee. The AO treated this amount as undisclosed income under section 69A of the Income-tax Act. The assessee contended that the FDRs were made solely for business purposes and were used as collateral securities for obtaining contracts. The assessee argued that the interest income should be considered as part of the business income rather than income from 'Other Sources'. The assessee provided explanations and cited relevant case laws to support this argument.

The ITAT Kolkata, after hearing both parties, noted that the assessee failed to provide concrete evidence to substantiate that the interest income from FDRs should be treated as business income. There was a shortfall in the declared income compared to the actual receipts. The ITAT Kolkata set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for re-examination. The AO was directed to consider the nature of the receipt in light of the case laws cited and the additional evidence that the assessee may provide regarding the essential nature of the FDRs for obtaining contracts. If the assessee could establish the direct nexus between FDRs and contract work, the interest income could be treated as business income; otherwise, it could be treated as income from 'Other Sources'. The assessee was given the opportunity to submit necessary contracts, documents, and evidence to support their contentions. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the ITAT Kolkata emphasized the importance of establishing a clear link between the interest income from FDRs and the business activities to determine the appropriate characterization of income. The decision highlighted the need for concrete evidence to support claims regarding the nature of receipts in tax assessments.

---