- (1.) IN the aforesaid appeals preferred by the Department under Section 260A of the Income -Tax Act, 1961, against the judgments passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow for different assessment years relating to identical facts and circumstances and as such the same, is being answered by means of the common judgment. The details of the Income Tax Appeals are as under: -
(2.) ON 23.03.2010, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the Appeal No. 184 of 2005, on the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether the transfer of investors' deposit to the tune of 18 to 20% by the respondent -Assessee, M/s. Sahara India Ltd. as agent's money, amounts to colourable exercise of power and accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer restricting the investment to 3% was correct and the deletion of the said amount by the appellate authority is substantially illegal, being non application of mind to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record? 2. Whether the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is substantially illegal being non -speaking, perverse and based on unfounded facts ?" On 01.04.2008, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the Appeal No.185 of 2005, on the following substantial question of law: - "1. Whether in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,38,91,176/ - made by the Assessing Officer by restricting the expenses claimed by the respondent as paid/reimbursed to its agent M/s. Sahara India to 3% of the total deposits collected, without appreciating that the memorandum of understanding between the respondent and M/s. Sahara India was only a colourable device resorted to defraud the revenue and that necessary details to prove that the expenses had been incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purposes could not be furnished by the respondent. 2. Whether in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs.4,38,91,176/ - without appreciating that mere issue of debit notes by M/s Sahara India did not amount to discharge of onus by the respondent that expenses as mentioned in the debit note had been incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purposes specially when no supporting details were supplied by the respondent. 3. Whether in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs.4,38,91,176/ - by observing that the Assessing Officer himself while completing the re -assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1992 -93 in the case of M/s Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd., had allowed the similar expenses claimed by the respondent in that case without appreciating that while completing the re -assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer was bound by the directions given by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 31.01.2001 while setting aside the assessment in the case of M/s Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd. and the department had not accepted the observations made by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its aforesaid order dated 31.1.2001 and appeal u/s 260A had been filed by the department before the Hon'ble Court against the said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. Whether in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in holding that no interest income was assessable in the hand of the respondent due to non charging of interest on the amount due from its agent M/s. Sahara India, even though the respondent was a finance company and its business was earning of income by investing its funds. 5. Whether in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in holding that no interest income was assessable in the hands of the respondent due to charging of interest at concessional rate on amount due from its directors, employees and other sister concerns of the Sahara Group, without appreciating that the respondent by not charging interest at concessional rate on the aforesaid amounts had abandoned/surrendered its income of its directors, employees and other sister concerns of the Sahara Group and that the said arrangement between the respondent and its directors, employees and sister concerns was only a colourable device entered into by them to defraud the revenue. 6. Whether in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in holding that even though the revised return filed by the assessee was invalid, the claim made therein in regard to the sum of Rs.1,10,30,490/ - could not be ignored as the respondent was entitled to make claim of expenses any time before the completion of the assessment.
(3.) ON 23.03.2010, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law in the Appeal No. 185 of 2005: - "1. Whether the transfer of investors' deposit to the tune of 18 to 20% by the respondent -Assessee, M/s. Sahara India Ltd. as agent's money, amounts to colourable exercise of power and accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer restricting the investment to 3% was correct and the deletion of the said amount by the appellate authority is substantially illegal, being non application of mind to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record? 2. Whether the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is substantially illegal being non -speaking, perverse and based on unfounded facts ?" ;