Madras High Court
Indian Bank vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2012
Author: Chitra Venkataraman
Bench: Chitra Venkataraman, K.Ravichandrabaabu
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 30.10.2012 Coram The Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Tax Case (Appeal) No. 457 of 2008 Indian Bank 66, Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 001 ... Appellant Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Spl. Range I 121 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034 ... Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 25.10.2007 passed in I.T.A.No. 1081/ MDS/ 2003 for the assessment year 1997-98. For Appellant : Dr.Anita Sumanth For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar ------- JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J. ) The above appeal is filed by the assessee/ Indian Bank as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment year 1997-98. The above Tax Case (Appeal) is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
" Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not allowing the appellant's claim for broken period interest?"
2. The above question was considered in T.C.Nos. 455 and 456 of 2008 by order dated 30.10.2012. Following the said decision answered against the assessee, present question is also answered against the assesee. Hence, the above substantial question of law is rejected.
3. Even though the above appeal is admitted on the above question of law, on going through the grounds of appeal, we find other substantial questions of law raised by the assessee. The other substantial questions of law which appear in the grounds of appeal are as follows:-
"1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Authority directing him to make denova assessment, classifying the investments into permanent and current, and whether such classification is called for in the case?
2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not considering the appellant's claim with regard to the estimated disallowance of expenditure allocated to the earning of tax free income?
3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought not to have allowed the appellant's claim on the said issue?"
The questions of law for consideration are hence reframed as including the above questions too.
3. As far as first two questions are concerned, the same had been held against the assessee in the decision in the assessee's own case in T.C.Nos. 455 and 456 of 2008 by order dated 30.10.2012. As far as the third question of law is concerned, in the earlier decision rendered in T.C.Nos. 455 and 456 of 2006, we set aside the order of the Tribunal, and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer so as to enable the assesee to let in evidence as to the source of his purchase of securities.
4. We had already considered the above issues by reason of our decision in T.C.No. 456 of 2008 dated 30.10.2012. Following the same, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
5. The above Tax Case (Appeal) is disposed of. No costs.
To
1. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Spl. Range I, 121 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench bg