2014 (11) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal. 2. The facts of these two cases are identical, therefore, we discuss only the facts of Tax Appeal No.20 of 2004 for convenience. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 31.08.1994 for the assessment year 1994-95, showing a loss of Rs. 25,290/. The Assessing Officer after scrutiny passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 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 dismissed the said appeals. Hence, these appeals are filed at the instance of assessee. 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tax Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,19,635/. 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)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under the Income Tax Act, each year is an independent year and the 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 relevan....