This Appeal Is Sought To Be Admitted On The Following Suggestedquestion Of Law v. C.i.t.[[1]]And The Decision Of Themadras High Court Has Been Affirmed By The Supreme Court In The

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.120 OF 2013 DATED:27.6.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)Hyderabad … AppellantAndM/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,5-4-36/1, J.N. RoadAbidsHyderabad … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. NO.120 OF 2013 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggestedquestion of law. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that thediscount paid by the Foreman to the subscribers to a chit fundtransaction does not partake the character of interest withinthe meaning of Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act andhence the assessee is not under obligation to causededuction of tax at source under Section 194A of the IncomeTax Act? The above question has already been answered by the DelhiHigh Court in Sahib Chits (Delhi) (P) Ltd., in I.T.A. No.44 of 2008, on24.7.2009, and also by the learned Tribunal of Bangalore Bench in thecase of Marga Soochi Chit Pvt. Ltd., in I.T.A. No.995/Bangalore/2008,wherein it was held that the amount disbursed by a chit fund companyto the members from the contribution cannot be treated as interest. Similar view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case ofBilahari Investments (P) Ltd. V. C.I.T.[[1]]and the decision of theMadras High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Bilahari Investment Pvt. Ltd.[[2]]. Therefore, the learnedTribunal has followed the correct proposition of law relying on theSupreme Court decision, and Delhi and Madras High Courtsdecisions. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ______________________ G. ROHINI, J 27.6.2013bnr [1]288 ITR 39 (Mad.)[2](2008) 299 ITR 1