1989 (2) TMI 144 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal partially allows appeal, directs reexamination of compulsory deposit liability.

MRS. SUMITRA CHART RAM. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, dismissing the first two grounds related to the addition of a loan benefit under the IT Act and the admissibility ... - Issues:1. Addition of loan benefit under IT Act2. Admissibility of deduction under s. 80T in capital gains3. Appeal against demand for compulsory deposit under Compulsory Deposit (ITP) Scheme Act, 1974Analysis:1. Addition of loan benefit under IT Act:The appeal involved the addition of Rs. 10,024 to the assessee's income due to a loan benefit received at a concessional rate of interest from a company where the assessee's spouse was a director. The AO rejected the plea that the company had surplus funds, noting that it had significant outstanding loans at higher interest rates. The Tribunal upheld the addition, stating that even if the company had idle funds, they could have been used to repay high-interest loans, and the actual benefit received by the assessee was the key consideration. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that there was no direct nexus between the borrowed funds and those lent to the assessee.2. Admissibility of deduction under s. 80T in capital gains:The second ground of appeal concerned the deduction under s. 80T in capital gains. The assessee contended that the AO erred in allowing deductions only after setting off losses from previous years. The Tribunal held that deductions under Chapter VI-A can only be allowed after computing the gross total income, in line with the Income-tax provisions. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument and upheld the AO's computation and deductions.3. Appeal against demand for compulsory deposit under Compulsory Deposit (ITP) Scheme Act, 1974:The third ground involved an appeal against the demand for a compulsory deposit under the Compulsory Deposit (ITP) Scheme Act, 1974. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s view that no appeal was provided against the deposit order. It noted that the Act deemed compulsory deposit as income tax, making the order appealable. The Tribunal directed the ITO to examine whether the assessee was liable for the deposit under the Act, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity to be heard before making a decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, dismissing the first two grounds but allowing the third ground with directions for further examination by the ITO regarding the compulsory deposit under the Act.