(1.) MR . T.R. Senthil Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondent/Department is directed to take notice for the respondent/Department. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee/appellant, the appellant/assessee is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 17.12.07, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: - -
(2.) THE facts, in a nutshell, are as hereunder: - -
(3.) THE CIT (Appeals) considered the issue as to whether the appellant is carrying on business of money lending or not and if it is found that he is also engaged in the business of money lending, whether the assessee will be entitled to the deduction as claimed by him. The CIT (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. : [1992] 198 ITR 297 : 64 Taxman 442 and held in favour of the appellant/assessee. The relevant portion of the order of the CIT (Appeals) is quoted hereinbelow for better clarity: - -