COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUBRATA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law urged by the revenue in this appeal (and the writ petition) is:

(2.) The assesse was managing director of Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereafter "SISICOL") during assessment year (AY) 1992-93; he was also a partner of M/s. Sahara India (hereafter referred to as "the firm"). In terms of an agreement dated August 17, 1987, the firm was to act as an agent to promote, conduct, introduce and secure business under SISICOL's schemes. The firm -in tune with its contractual obligations, had to remit Rs. 26,24,12,222/- on 31-03-1992, which it had collected and was payable to SISICOL.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - hereafter "CIT (A)" held that SISICOL had advanced sums to a concern (the firm) in which the assessee had a substantial interest. Taking note that Section 2(22)(e) as applicable after its amendment w.e.f. from 31-05-1987, for AY year 1988-89, included concerns in which shareholder is a member or partner, the CIT (A) upheld the addition made.