THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
ITTA.No.406 of 2005
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. K.Raji Reddy, learned Standing
counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for the
respondent.
2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) against the order dated 26.04.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "B", in I.T.A.No.565/Hyd/2001 for the assessment year 1999- 2000.
3. While admitting the appeal vide the order dated 13.12.2005, substantial question of law was not framed. From the memorandum of appeal, we find that following is the substantial question of law:
2
'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest earned on the amount deposited in the Bank received as an interim measure under directions of the High Court is an income when the arbitral award itself is in dispute and pending adjudication before the High Court?
4. Mr. A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that this substantial question was also one of the substantial questions of law in I.T.T.A.No.320 of 2005 filed by the appellant itself for the assessment year of 1997-98. While disposing of I.T.T.A.No.320 of 2005 vide order dated 21.09.2022, this Court held that Tribunal has followed its earlier decision dated 29.07.2002 in appeals filed by the appellant itself for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97.
5. Against the order dated 29.07.2002, appellant had preferred appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the Act being I.T.T.A.No.168 of 2003. This Court by order 3 dated 02.09.2014 held that opening of assessment was valid and that interest accrued on interim award deposited in Bank was income chargeable to tax.
6. Following the above decision, ITTA No.320 of 2005 was dismissed.
7. That being the position, the substantial question of law as framed is answered in favour of the respondent and against assessee.
8. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 19.10.2022 MRM