2008 (1) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, being No.2568/1993, is by the assessee. 2. First of all, we take up the appeals of the Revenue. 3. The three appeals relate to the different assessment years, inasmuch as the Appeal No.47/2002 relates to assessment year 1991-92, the Appeal No.48/2002 relates to assessment year 1992-93 and Appeal No.63/2004 relates to assessment year 1993-94. 4. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal decided two appeals, relating to assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 by common order, which order is the subject matter of Appeals No.47 and 48 of 2002 respectively. 5. The facts necessary for the present controversy are, that the Department sent an information to the assessee under Section 143(1)(a) of the act, conveying, that the assessee is liable ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at on this issue, there can be more than one view, and therefore, anything that involves a doubt, could not be proceeded under Section 143(1)(a), and having so proceeded, it would amount to error apparent on the face of the record.  Accordingly, the application under Section 154 was allowed. Then the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in appeal by the Revenue, again considered the matter. It also noticed, that similar view has already been taken by the Tribunal, in SBBJ v. DCIT reported in 22 Tax World 6, on merits, in favour of the assessee. Then, the learned Tribunal has proceeded to reproduce the relevant portion of the said judgment in SBBJ's case, which in turn, proceeded on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v.&nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dgment proceeds substantially on four judgments of the Supreme Court, which, in our view also, are on all the fours, on the controversy involved in the present case, it can not be said that the learned tribunal committed any error in dismissing the appeals of the revenue. So far as Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank's case is concerned, that case also does not help the cause of the Revenue, inasmuch as, it was considered even in that case, that the interest can be taxed, only after it becomes due i.e. receivable, which, in that particular case, was receivable after specified date, which was the date after the closure of the accounting year, and therefore, the Revenue was not held entitled to tax. In the present case, it is not shown, that the amoun....