PADMAVATI JAYKRISHNA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : -

(2.) THE facts leading to the present reference are as follows : We are concerned with the assessment year 1969 -70, the previous year being calendar year 1968, ending on December 31, 1968. The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual. Before the ITO, she claimed a deduction on account of interest deficit of Rs. 33,516. According to her, the interest was paid to Harivallabhdas Kalidas Estate in respect of borrowings made by the assessee not only in the past, but also during the current year. The withdrawals were utilised partly for investment in shares, etc., and partly for meeting personal liabilities like payment of income -tax, annuity deposit and household expenses, The ITO noted that out of the opening balance in the account of Harivallabhdas Kalidas Estate of Rs. 5,60,474, Rs. 3,19,340 were for withdrawals made for investment purposes and out of the withdrawals made in the accounting year, Rs. 26,025 were also for the purpose of investments. The ITO, therefore, allocated the interest claimed in the proportion of withdrawals for investment purposes and withdrawals for meeting personal liabilities like payment of income -tax, annuity deposit and household expenses, and he determined the former amount at Rs. 24,849 and allowed this as interest deficit against the claim of Rs. 33,515.

(3.) AGAINST the decision of the AAC, the assessee went up in appeal before the Tribunal on this point and other points. At the time of hearing, on behalf of the assessee, reliance was placed on some other aspect, but, as this point was not taken up before the ITO, that point was not pressed. The Tribunal did not allow the assessee to raise altogether a new case at that late stage. The Tribunal noted that in the case of the assessee herself for the earlier assessment years, this point was decided against the assessee and, therefore, the Tribunal saw no reason to differ from the earlier decisions and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, at the instance of the assessee, the question hereinabove set out has been referred to us for our opinion.