M/S. ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR
In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 385/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 115J
…ecause an error cannot be allowed to be perpetuate forever. 38. In this regard reliance has been placed on the following decisions:- i. CIT v British Paints India Ltd in 188 ITR 44 (SC) ii. ANUP SHARMA v. CIT, ITA No. 161/CHD/2012 iii. Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) iv. Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) 39. Thus, even if, the assessee has wrongly considered interest income as income from other sources in the AY 2012-13, such wrong treatment may not be accepted in the subsequent years. Thus, in the light of the above, it is submitted that the addition made by t…
