Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 07.07.2008 . Present: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal for the Appellant. . + ITA 764/2008 . This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 30.11.2007 in ITA 239/Del/2006 concerning the assessment year 2001-02. The Assessing Officer had noted that in the preceding year the assessee had credited an amount of Rs 36,89,451 under the head of ?Other Income?. However, no interest was disclosed during the current year. The assessee has explained this by stating that there were certain trade debtors who had not been making payments and in order to recover the debts they were notified that in case the payments were not made, interest @?18% per annum would be charged on the outstanding amount. The interest amount was calculated and shown on accrual basis in the books for the immediately preceding year. However, according to the assessee, despite such notices to the debtors, they refused to make the payment and the assessee, for the current year, ceased to show the interest as accruing on the outstanding balance. The Assessing Officer computed notional interest @ 18% and accordingly added an amount of Rs 25,37,679/-. The appeal made by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was successful inasmuch as the addition was deleted. The same point was argued by the revenue in its appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the parties before the Tribunal, the said Tribunal came to the view that in the absence of any agreement to charge any interest on the debts due from the trade debtors, the decision not to charge interest on the basis of commercial expediency could not be doubted. The Tribunal also found that there was no material to show any collusive arrangement between the assessee and the trade debtors with a motive to defraud the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. . . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . . . RAJIV SHAKDHER, J July 07, 2008 SR . . .