JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Tribunal relating to the asst. year 1990 91.
(2.) THE assessee is a partnership concern. It is engaged in the manufacture and export of goods. The assessee claimed benefit under S. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of its income from business which also included an amount of Rs. 32,400 which had been received by way of rent and Rs. 1,88,807 which had accrued by way of interest. The claim of the assessee for benefit under s. 80HHC of the Act was disallowed in respect of these two items by the AO. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal. The CIT(A) found that these two amounts formed part of the assessee's income from business. It further noticed that the amount could be excluded only w.e.f. 1st April, 1992, in view of the insertion of sub cl. (baa) to the Explanation of S. 80HHC. Thus, the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld. Hence, this appeal. Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the income received by the assessee on account of interest and rent cannot be treated as a part of the income from business. Resultantly, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal. The claim made on behalf of the Revenue has been controverted by Mr. Ajay Mittal, learned counsel for the assessee.
(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the assessee had earned interest on the deposit it made with M/s Swami Motors for the purchase of car. Another part of the interest had been earned on deposits with the IDBI. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence has found that both the deposits were made for purposes which were incidental to the normal business activity of the assessee. Still further, even the interest on FDRs was relatable to the running of business as these were used for availing of the credit facilities from the bank. Nothing has been pointed out to show that these findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to any evidence on the file.;