Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. We have called for the said appeal files and on perusal of order sheet; we do not find any such direction of the bench. On the other hand, we observe that assessee, for the reason best known to it, did not bring to the notice of the Bench of filing the cross (arising out of ITA Nos.7160 & 5666/Mum/2004) objections. Further, ld D.R. also stated that the cross objections have been filed on the assumption that AO may tax the guarantee commission in subsequent years, which was already taxed in earlier years in view of the decision of ITAT Special Bench giving direction to AO to examine whether the commission was refundable on the revocation of guarantee and if it is found out to be so, then the commission should be spread over the period for which the guarantee is given; otherwise it is to be taxed in the year the guarantee was given irrespective of the period for which it was spread over. He submitted that the cross objections filed by assessee do not arise out of impugned orders of ld CTI(A).

"4. The third ground is against the deletion of addition on account of deferred guarantee commission. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue also came up before the Special Bench in the aforenoted case and the same has been restored to the file of AO with a direction to examine whether the commission was refundable on the revocation of guarantee. If it is found out to be so, then the commission should be spread over the period for which the guarantee is given; otherwise it is to be taxed in the year the guarantee was given irrespective of the period for which it was spread over. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that he has no objection to the restoration of the issue in accordance with the view taken by the Special Bench but it should be clarified that if the amount of deferred guarantee commission is held to be taxable in the year in which guarantee was given, then the amount already offered for taxation on the basis of spreading over the period of guarantee, should not be taxed again. The ld. D.R. candidly accepted that this issue was decided by the Special Bench of the Tribunal restoring the matter to the file of AO in the terms submitted by the ld. A.R. He, however, did not raise any objection to the prayer made by the ld. A.R. for not doubly taxing the same income, firstly in the year in (arising out of ITA Nos.7160 & 5666/Mum/2004) which the guarantee was given and secondly when the amount was voluntarily offered by the assessee over the period of guarantee.