TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the sides are unable to dispute that the questions which arise for consideration in the present appeal is covered by the decision of this court in Appeal No. 29 of 2013 decided today. As such, the said decision was for the very assessee except that the present appeals are for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. 4. We may record that this court in the above referred to decision in I.T.A. 29 of 2013 for merits of the appeal of the Revenue has observed thus : "We may at the outset record that since the delay was a very long delay of 2586 days, we found it appropriate to consider the merits of the appeal simultaneously. 2. The Revenue has preferred this appeal by raising four substantial questions of law but in our view only the first question would arise for consideration and subsequent questions are only the consequential aspects. Hence, we find that the main question which arise for consideration is as under : '(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the interest deduction claimed by the assessee is an allowable deduction without taking into account the fact that the assessee had not utilised the loan amount in the course of business activity and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order. Before us, the Department has not disputed the above finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, it is an undisputed fact that the payments made by the assessee to its sister concerns are only to acquire property rights. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee is in real estate business and acquiring property rights is a part of its business. Thus, the payments made by the assessee to its sister concerns ought not to have been held by the lower authorities as diversion of funds for non business purposes. In the light of the above, it is not possible for us to agree with the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessee should have produced independent evidence in support of an undisputed fact. It is trite that evidence is required to be let in only on disputed facts and no evidence is required to support an admitted fact. Consequently, we hold that the payment made by the assessee to its sister concerns is for the purpose of its business. As a result, interest is required to be allowed under section 36 of the Act. We make it clear that out of the total interest paid by the assessee, a part will be allowed under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e observations of the Tribunal, we need not repeat the same but the additional aspect is that in the above observation of the Tribunal, there is also reference to similar finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on pages 32 and 33. As the said finding is not reproduced by the Tribunal in its order, we find it appropriate to reproduce the same. 8. When the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was considering the applicability of the decision in the case of CIT v. Veerabhadra Industries reported in [1999] 240 ITR 5 (AP) while distinguishing the said decision, it has been inter alia recorded as under : 'Similarly its reliance on the judgment in the case of CIT v. Veerabhadra Industries reported in [1999] 240 ITR 5 (AP) is also misplaced in that rental income in that case was held as assessable as income from house property in as much as there was only single act of construction of godown and letting it out as against the systematic activity of construction of one building after another and also acquiring property rights in Diamond District and Platinum City.' (emphasis supplied) 9. It is, inter alia, observed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsequently as observed earlier at two places similar factum is also recorded. The third is that when such finding of fact was not disputed and was also reiterated by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the said reiteration was also not disputed and the Tribunal has relied upon the same and has proceeded as an undisputed fact, such a view on the part of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse view. 14. When one talks about perversity, the test would be that no reasonable person would take such view. But if the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible reasonable view, such view cannot be said to be perverse. If the perversity is tested from the material on record, then also, we cannot accept the contention that the finding of fact so recorded by the Tribunal is perverse or without there being any material on record. 15. Further attempt made by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is misunderstanding of the order of the Tribunal or the Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the observations made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also cannot be accepted for two reasons : One is that had such being the position, nothing prevented the Department from raising the disput....