🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs J.J. Exporters Ltd.

Case No: Income Tax A. No. 359 of 2004 in G.A. No. 2077 of 2004

Date of Decision: Feb. 17, 2009

Acts Referred: Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 80HHC, 80HHC(3), 80HHC(4C)

Citation: (2010) 324 ITR 329

Hon'ble Judges: Sankar Prasad Mitra, J; Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J

Bench: Division Bench

Advocate: Bhowmick, for the Appellant;

Final Decision: Dismissed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

1. We have perused the application for condonation of delay. In our considered opinion sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in

filing the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay is thus allowed and disposed of We now take up the application for admission of

the appeal.

2. Mr. Bhowmick, Learned Counsel appearing in support of this application tried to point out the grievance in this matter is in respect of interest on

loan and the interest from bank (short-term deposit). The facts of the case are as follows:

3. This appeal is for the assessment year 1996-97. The Assessing Officer was directed to treat interest income as business income and not income

from other sources. Hence, the appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Learned Tribunal. The assessee is an exporter of silk fabrics.

During the assessment year, the assessee received interest on various heads including the interest on loan and interest from bank (short-term

deposit). The assessee treated the amount of interest as business income and claimed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. According to the assessee,

the surplus funds were temporarily invested in loans and advances and earned interest. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in its

order considered the said issue and directed the Assessing Officer to treat the interest income as business income and not income from other

sources and further directed to recalculate the deduction u/s 80HHC of the said Act. Taking into account such facts the contention of the

Department before the Learned Tribunal was that the interest income has no business relationship and thus the same could not be considered while

calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the interest income was not claimed u/s 80HHC(3) of

the Act but only 10 per cent, of the said amount was claimed for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC in terms of Explanation (baa) to Sub-

Section (4C) of Section80HHC of the Act.

4. The Learned Tribunal considered these facts and came to the conclusion that the aggregate amount which could not be said to be an income,

being the interest income, is a business income and could be considered for deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned

Tribunal also relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Madras Vs. Commissioner of

Income Tax, Madras, and came to the conclusion that the interest earned by the assessee on loans, interest from bank (short-term deposit) and the

income on the booking of cars and other income, the details of which are mentioned in the account was the interest earned by the assessee by

putting the surplus fund arose on account of business carried on by the assessee and the said business was authorized by Clause 18 of the objects

clause of the memorandum and articles of association of the assessee.

5. In these circumstances, the Learned Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the interest from the above

loan is the income of the assessee during the course of its business and as such it is to be assessed under the head ""Business income"", and

therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified to direct the Assessing Officer to consider the said interest.

6. In these circumstances, we have not been able to find out any illegality or irregularity in respect of the order so passed by the Learned Tribunal

and we come to the conclusion that in the facts and the material placed before us, there is no substantial question of law involved in the matter to

admit the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

7. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

Download Judgement PDF