Commissioner of Income Tax vs Indo Java and Co.

By The Court

Hearing concluded. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Phalton Sugar Works Ltd., . Having heard learned counsel, we are of the opinion that question No. 1 framed on behalf of the Revenue is merely academic and no reference is called for thereon. However, questions Nos. 2 to 5 are questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal which need to be answered by the High Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following questions (questions Nos. 2 to 5 proposed by the petitioner) for the opinion of the High Court :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the assessed suffered trading loss of goods worth Rs. 15,53,504 when there is no evidence on record of title in goods (PVC) having passed to the assessed from Singapore exporter (Bentrex & Co.).

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed disputing its liability to pay Rs. 15,53,504 to Indian Overseas Bank in suit in the Delhi High Court, can still claim deduction of Rs. 15,53,504 as a business loss ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was entitled to deduction of interest of Rs. 1,42,369 ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the deduction of interest of Rs. 1,42,369 even though it is not an accrued liability ?"

No order as to costs.