ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) Revenue seeks to prefer this appeal against order dated 13th August, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, Kolkata, in ITA no.1877/KOL/2010 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. The following questions have been suggested:- "a) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata has erred in holding that Explanation to section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not applicable by considering the income declared under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as "Income from other sources" that too without considering the true nature of the activity carried on by the assessee and also without deciding the principle business of the assessee? b) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata has erred in holding that the seized cash should be treated as paid under section 140A on the stipulated day of 120 days under section 132B (1)(i), thus directing to calculate the interest chargeable under section 234B without appreciating the fact that no seizure of cash was made in the case of the assessee?"
(2.) The relevant facts are that search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted between 28th March, 2008 and 8th April, 2008 at the common address of 9 persons including the assessee. During the search and seizure the group of persons voluntarily disclosed a sum of Rs.15 crores as additional income in the hands of the assessee and Rs.30 crores in the hands of Umang Vincom Pvt. Ltd., one of the 9 persons, for the financial year 2007-08 relevant to assessment year 2008-09. Cash of an amount of Rs.17,50,99,994/- was seized from the bank account of Shoparna Brothers Pvt. Ltd., another one of the 9 persons, which however stood explained. The assessee had recorded a statement under section 132(4) of the Act on 8th April, 2008 saying that tax liability arising out of the disclosure be adjusted out of the balance of Rs.17 crores and odd lying in the bank account of Shoparna Brothers Pvt. Ltd. On 28th May, 2008 Shoparna Brothers Pvt. Ltd. made an application to the Assessing Officer for release of its cash seized, in favour of the assessee, for payment of its tax liability of Rs.4,43,00,000/-. The assessee also made an application on the same day showing its tax liability for the assessment year in question to be Rs.4,43,00,000/- under section 140A of the Act with a request for adjustment of this liability against release of the cash. The Assessing Officer did act upon such request, after some delay of a few months, on 30th March, 2009.
(3.) The first question suggested by the Revenue is in regard to its contention that the assessee having had disclosed Rs.15 crores as additional income, the same was income from other sources making it a company within the exception provided in the explanation to section 73 of the Act. Hence, it could not claim to set off its speculation loss against such income. The other question suggested is with regard to the Assessing Officer having charged interest for a period prior to which the assessee had applied to have its tax liability adjusted against the seized cash.;