No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK
Before: SHRI N.S SAINI
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1,
Bhubaneswar, dated 18.3.2015 for the assessment year 2010-2011.
The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in
confirming the action of the Assessing Officer assessing the interest income
earned on fixed deposits of Rs.16,30,14,270/- under the head “income
from other sources” in place of ïncome from business and profession”
shown by the assessee.
2 ITA No. 289/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1
The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing officer observed that
the assessee has shown interest income from bank on fixed deposits of
Rs.16,30,14,270/-. The assessee has claimed to have received security
deposits from its customers to whom the assessee supplies electricity. The
assessee has kept this security deposits in fixed deposits with Bank. The
assessee also pays interest to its customers on the security deposits
received from them. The assessee earned interest from bank on fixed
deposits of Rs.16,30,14,270/- and has also claimed expenses as interest
paid on security deposits of Rs.15,80,33,663/-. The Assessing Officer
observing that the assessee failed to show any nexus of interest income
earned on security deposits with the business of the assessee held that the
interest income was to be assessed under the head “income from other
sources” and not under the head “business income”.
On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.
Before me, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted
that in the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee had shown interest
income earned from security deposits kept with the bank as Fixed Deposits
of Rs.1,80,75,192, which was assessed by the Assessing Officer in an
assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 21.4.2009 under
the head “business income”. Further, in the assessment year 2008-09, the
assessee had shown interest income earned from security deposits kept
with the bank as Fixed Deposits of Rs.4,25,80,370, which was assessed by
the Assessing Officer in an assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act vide
3 ITA No. 289/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1
order dated 28.12.2010 under the head “business income”. He further
submitted that in the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee had shown
interest income earned from security deposits kept with the bank as Fixed
Deposits of Rs.15,11,97,105/-, which was assessed by the Assessing
Officer in an assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act under the head
“business income”. He argued that in the year under appeal only, the
interest earned on security deposits with the bank as fixed deposits has
been assessed under the head “income from other sources”. He submitted
that though the principle of res-judicata are not applicable to income tax
proceedings but it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of RADHASOAMI SATSANG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 193 ITR
321 (SC) where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different
assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties
have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it
would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a
subsequent year. Hence, it was his prayer that the orders of lower
authorities should be reversed and the appeal of the assessee should be
accepted.
On the other hand, ld Departmental Representative supported the
orders of lower authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower
authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the
undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee earned interest on
4 ITA No. 289/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1
security deposits received from its customers kept with the bank as fixed
deposit of Rs. 16,30,14,270/-, which was shown by the assessee in its
return of income filed under the head business income. The Assessing
Officer assessed the same under the head income from other sources,
which was confirmed in appeal by the CIT(A). The contention of the Ld
A.R. of the assessee is that in the immediately preceding assessment year
2007-08, the interest income earned on security deposits of the assessee
of Rs.1,80,75,192/-, in the assessment year 2008-09, the interest income
earned from security deposits of Rs.4,25,80,370 and in the assessment
year 2009-10, the interest income earned from security deposits of
Rs.15,11,97,105/-, has been assessed under the head “business income”by
the Assessing Officer in assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act . Therefore
consistency should be maintained in the present year under appeal and the
interest income should be assessed under the head “business income”. For
this proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of RADHASOAMI SATSANG (supra), wherein, it was held as
under:
“Where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different “assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. Hence, it was his prayer that the orders of lower authorities should be reversed and the appeal of the assessee should be accepted.”
5 ITA No. 289/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1
I find to the same effect is the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295(SC), wherein, it
has been held as under:
“That a consistent view had been taken in favour of the assessee on the questions raised, starting with the assessment year 1992-93, that the benefits under the advance licences or under the duty entitlement pass book did not represent the real income of the assessee. There was no reason for the court to take a different view unless there were very convincing reasons, which there were not.
Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon’ble
Supreme Court and keeping in view the fact no change in facts has been
brought on record by the revenue during the year under appeal, I set aside
the orders of lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to assess
the interest income earned from security deposits received from its
customers under the head “business income” and allow this ground of
appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/03/2017 in the presence of parties.
Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Cuttack; Dated 08/03/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS
6 ITA No. 289/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. Western Electricity Supply Company of Odisha Ltd., Corporate Office, Burla, Sambalpur 2. The Respondent. DCIT, Circle-2 (2), Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar. 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//
SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack