2018 (9) TMI 955

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctor of the assessee company. 2. We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R on the condonation of delay and carefully perused the contents and averments made in the application as well as supporting affidavit filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the delay in filing the appeal as under :- "It is submitted that for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12, appeal involving same ground was heard on 15.03.2018 and the order was passed by Hon'ble ITAT on 04.04.2018 which was received by the assessee company on 09.04.2018 i.e. before the last date of filing Form 36. Hon'ble ITAT for both the years set aside the matter to the file of ld.AO for fresh adjudication. Thus, I, director of the assessee company was under a bona-f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l is required to be filed. However, subsequently, the Counsel of the assessee advised the appellant to file the appeal against the impugned order of ld. CIT (A) as the earlier order of this Tribunal would not automatically reverse the findings of the AO and ld. CIT (A). Hence we find that the assessee has a reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Further when the explanation of the assessee is not found to be malafide and by filing the belated appeal the assessee has not attempted to act arbitrarily, vague or fanciful manner then the appeal of the assessee should be decided on merit instead of dismissing the same on technical ground. Accordingly having considered the facts and circumstances....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for verification and adjudication of the claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act. Hence the ld. A/R has pleaded that the additional evidence sought to be filed by the assessee may be admitted. 6. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the AO has considered this issue in the light of various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts. He has submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Ram Honda Power Equipment, 289 ITR 475 (Delhi) has held that the interest income earned on deposits is to be taxable as income from other sources under section 56 of the Act. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tuticorin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ments on the issue under consideration. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sree Ram Honda Power Equipment 289 ITR 475 (Delhi) has held that the interest income earned on deposits is to be taxable as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act. Similar view has also been expressed in other decisions particularly Apex Court's decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkalies and Fertilizers and also in CIT vs Auto Kast Ltd 248 ITR 110 (SC), CIT vs V. Goppinathan, Consolidated Fibres vs CIT and K Ravindranatham v/s DCIT (Asstt.) 262 ITR 669. All the above judicial pronouncement support the view that the interest income is income from other sources. This issue was also raised during the scrutiny assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009....