Kerala High Court
Southern Cashew Exporters vs Dy. Cit on 13 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003]130TAXMAN203(KER)
Author: G. Sivarajan
Bench: G. Sivarajan
JUDGMENT G. Sivarajan, J.
This appeal is filed by M/s. Southern Cashew Exporters, Chandanathope, Kollan against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA Nos. 15 & 16/Coch./99 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. his appeal is only in respect of the assessment year 1994-95. The questions of law formulated by the assessee read as follows :
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that interest amount of Rs. 5,34,296 received on short term deposit is not income from business ?
2. Whether there were materials for the Appellate Tribunal to hold that the interest on short term deposit has to be treated as income from other sources in view of the fact that the deposit were made at the instant of the bank for opening letters of credit and for keeping margin money and because of which the deposits are committed deposit?
3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal had materials to hold that the gross interest receipts was income from other sources when only net would be taken into account especially in view of Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC (4A) ?"
Though there are three questions they are different facets of the question as to whether the sum of Rs. 5,34,296 received by the assessee by way of interest on short term deposit can be treated as income from business for the purpose of grant of relief under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer has taken the view that the said amount has to be assessed under the head 'Other sources'. However, in appeal by the assessee the first appellate authority had accepted the contention of the assessee and directed that the said amount has also to be considered for the purpose of section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. In appeal by the department, the Tribunal set aside the order of the first appellate authority and restored the order of the assessing officer. Hence this appeal by the assessee. Though the matter has come up for admission, since the matter is, prima facie, covered by the decision of this court in the judgment dated 8-11-2002 in IT A. No. 291 of 2002 and in the judgment dated 7-2-2003 in ITA No. 102 of 2000, we have beard Shri P. Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Shri P.K.R. Menon, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also perused the aforesaid two judgments. We find that the questions raised by the appellant and extracted above are squarely covered by the said judgments against the assessee and in favour of the department.
2. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed.