CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 01 DEL CK 0027

Gautam Cable Industries vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Delhi High Court · Decided on 18 January 2010 · Citation: (2010) 321 ITR 440

HON’BLE JUDGES
Siddharth Mridul, J · Badar Durrez Ahmed, J
CASE NUMBER
ITA No''s. 1035 of 2007, 147 and 152 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 336 words

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

CM No. 1569/2008 in ITA No. 147/2008, 2601/2008 in ITA 152/2008 Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

ITA Nos. 1035/2007, 147/2009 & 152/2009

1.

These three appeals arise out of the common order dated 02.06.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 40, 1391 and 3319/Del/2001-02 pertaining to the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The appellant/assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in view of the fact that the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restored the order of the Assessing Officer who disallowed the claim of interest payment made by the assessee to the bank in respect of the borrowed funds on the ground that the said borrowed funds were diverted to sister concerns.

2.

The Assessing Officer as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal came to the definite conclusion that there was a diversion of funds which had been borrowed by the assessee from banks to the sister concerns, namely, Govan Industrial Corporation and Anilmaa Association, which were not covered within the scope of the commercial expediency or business exigencies of the assessee. A finding was also recorded that the Assessing Officer had examined not only the books of the assessee, but also the assessment orders and other records of the sister concerns, namely, Govan Industrial Corporation and Anilmaa Association. After such an examination, the Assessing Officer had come to a definite finding that the group concerns had not utilized the funds for the purposes of their business, but had instead diverted the same further to individuals/family members of the group.

3.

We have seen the impugned order as well as have heard the counsel for the parties and are of the view that the findings returned by the Tribunal are in the nature of pure findings of fact. There is no substantial question of law which arises for our consideration. Consequently, we refrain from admitting these appeals. The appeals are dismissed.