AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The only issue which arose before the Tribunal was whether the interest income received by the assessee on short-term fixed deposit constituted part of the total turnover of the assessees business and also whether it formed part of the total business income of the assessee.
In the present case there is no factual data to decide the aforestated issue. The nature of the receipt is not discussed. The assessee is an exporter. Whether the amount received by him which he invested in FDR was in terms of the agreement or contract of export, whether it was a part of the advance or whether it was part of the surplus at the foot of the accounts of the assessee-company.
At page 88 of the paper book the Tribunal holds that the interest income was generated by way of keeping the "advances" received by the assessee in the course of its regular business activity. We do not know on what basis this observation has been made. It is not clear whether the contract between the parties was examined or not. The High Court while disposing of the matter has also not examined the factual basis. According to the department, it was the case of surplus being invested in FDR whereas according to the assessee it was the case of advance having been received from the exporter which was invested in FDR for short duration.
In view of the absence of factual matrix we are of the view that to decide the question as to whether the receipt fell u/s 28 or u/s 56 the matter needs to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Liberty is given to the assessee to file additional documents before the Tribunal, if so advised.
Subject to above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Civil appeals stand disposed of with no order as to costs.