- (1.) This appeal is at the instance of the assessee Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Limited against the judgment and order of 'E' Bench of the learned Tribunal dated 30th of June, 2003 in relation to assessment year 1993- 94. This appeal was admitted by an order of this Court dated 15th January, 2004 on the following substantial questions of law:- "I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in holding that allowability or disallowability of the sum of Rs.180.97 lakh under the heading "Return to Certificateholders" as outgoing from profit depends on the revenue or capital nature of the receipt of subscriptions from the certificate-holders, regardless of its decision to the contrary? II. Whether the Tribunal erred in remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer in departure from its earlier decision that return to certificate-holders represents the assessee's liability by way of interest and bonus due to the subscribers on their deposits, and partakes of the nature of revenue outgoing, while the subscriptions represent capital liability? III. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in deviating from its decision in appeal for Asst. Year 1991-92 with regard to the interest-free loans in the set of facts and circumstances, admitted by the Assessing Officer to be same as those in instant year and perversely remitted the issue involving addition of similar interest of Rs.13,26,11,700/-? IV. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the failure of the Tribunal to appreciate that the restrictions contained in Residuary Non-banking Company (Reserve Bank of India) Direction, 1987 precludes presumption of diversion of depositors' money is perverse and ex facie erroneous and the addition is arbitrary? V. Whether the Tribunal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case erred in disallowing the entirety of the expenditure of foreign tour Rs.16,77,208/- overruling the allowance by the CIT (Appeals) of Rs.8,38,604/- being 50% thereof and in disregard of its own order for such allowance under similar circumstances in the past? VI. Whether the Tribunal erred in declining depreciation in entirety in respect of the long-term lease-hold properties including the lease for perpetuity and restricting the depreciation only with regard to capital expenditure for any structure by way of addition and/or alteration?"
(2.) At the time of hearing learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. Bagchi appearing for the assessee submits upon instruction that his client is not interested to proceed with the appeal except on the point formulated in clause (v) and clause (vi). In view of this submission we do not need to decide other points as formulated under grounds No.(i) to (iv). Hence we take up hearing on those two grounds only.
(3.) Mr. Bagchi submits that the nature of the assessee's business is a nonbanking financing that includes acceptance of deposit from public to pool for making investments within the limitation of prudential norms issued by the RBI, and it obviously precludes the possibility of any purpose of capital nature. The continuity of collection in foreign exchange and the long history of regular campaign over years per se is a circumstance of substantially evidentiary value.;