Itta/286/2013 Of Baldev Goverdhan v. The Income Tax Officer

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.286 of 2013 Between:Baldev Govardhan,Hyderabad. AndThe Income Tax Officer,Ward-7(4),Hyderabad. DATED: 17.7.2013 … Appellant …. Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.286 OF 2013 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gonethrough the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears, the learned Tribunal has come to the correct factfinding in the manner as follows: “The assessee submitted in the memo of income that it hadbeen admitting its income u/s. 44AF and the income return ofRs.40,674.85 after deducting remuneration to the partners andinterest paid to the parties. In this computation, as given by theassessee, the starting point of profit before interest andremuneration to the partners @ Rs.2,39,270.45 is @ 6.08% ofthe turnover. Obviously this income from which thecomputation has commenced is not in accordance with Sec.44AF.” Therefore, the learned Tribunal has correctly come to a factfinding that it cannot be said that the assessee has opted for Sec. 44AFand the computation should be made on that basis and no adjustmentcan be made on the profit and loss offered and accepted. Similarly, theinterest earned by the assessee has not been treated to be businessincome, but it has been treated as income from other sources and acorrect decision has been taken for bringing the interest income to the originally assessed income. In view of the aforesaid situation, we do not think that there is anyinfirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the learnedTribunal. We accordingly affirm the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ G. ROHINI, J 17.07.2013 pnb