Commissioner of Income Tax vs Assam Plantation Crops. Dev. Corpn. Ltd.

D.N. Baruah, J.—As per the direction given by this Court in Civil Rule No. 21 (M) of 1991, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal u/s 256(2) of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act'') for opinion of this Court: Whether, the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue keeping in view the decision of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 292 to 295 (Gau.) of 1983, dated 9-8-1985 when that order was not accepted by the Department and Hon''ble Gauhati High Court has already directed the Tribunal to refer the questions of law vide its judgment dated 27-1-1989 in Civil Rule Nos. 1 (M), 2(M), 8(M), 13(M) of 1987 ?

Facts are : The Assessing Officer found that the assessee-corporation had fixed deposits with banks from which it derived interest. For the assessment year 1984-85, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had interest income to the extent of Rs. 13,11,513. He allowed the deduction of expenses at 10 per cent and determined the interest income at Rs. 10,90,420 for the assessment year 1984-85. Similarly, for the assessment year 1985-86, the Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs. 18,85,400. Against the orders of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the orders of the Assessing Officer. Situated thus, the assessee preferred yet another appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that on the question of assessability of interest the Tribunal had passed an order on 9-8-1985 in I.T. Appeal Nos. 292 to 295'' (Gauhati) of 1983 and, as such, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have followed that order. The Tribunal further observed that till its decision was upset by the decision of this Court it would hold good and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) should redecide the appeals afresh keeping in view the decision of the Tribunal dated 9-8-1985. Thereafter, the revenue made a request to the Tribunal to refer the above question for opinion of this Court. The Tribunal refused to comply with the request. Therefore, the revenue approached this Court and on the direction of this Court this reference has been made.

Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, the learned Jr. Standing Counsel, income tax Department and Dr. B.P. Todi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee.

Mr. Bhuyan submits that on the question whether receipt by way of interest on fixed deposit is an income assessable under income tax Act, as per the direction of this Court, the Tribunal made a reference which was numbered as CIT v. Assam Plantation Crops Dev. Corpn. Ltd. [IT Reference No. 45 of 1990] and this Court by judgment dated 31-5-1996 held that receipt by way of interest on fixed deposit was an income assessable under head "Income from other source". Accordingly, the reference was answered in favour of the revenue. Be that as it may, IT. Reference No. 45 of 1990 (supra) was answered on the question whether receipt by way of interest on fixed deposit was an income assessable under the income tax Act and it was answered in favour of the revenue, but the present reference is on the question whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the issue keeping in view its earlier order. In our opinion, so long the question referred to this Court was not answered by this Court, the Tribunal had all the jurisdiction to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the matter in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.