- (1.) BY Court Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent.
(2.) IN this case, the Tribunal has held that the money, which was taken by the Respondent, was for the purposes of paying interest and on that count, the Tribunal has reversed the findings of the Appellate Authority and the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority, both have concurrently found that the money which is to the tune of Rs. 94 lacs and odd was realised from the employees as contribution to a Scheme, which was likely to be floated in the nature of pension Scheme or in any other Scheme but that could not be fructified because such Scheme was not approved and therefore, the amount as delineated in Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, having not been deposited in the Scheme, was an income assessable as a taxable income. The findings of the Appellate Authority and the Assessing Authority has been reversed by the Tribunal by saying that the Scheme was never in existence, therefore, the same could not be taxed under Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse because the amount was collected with a clear intention that the same would be utilised for the Scheme. Thus, there cannot be any other intention of the deposit being accepted by the employer -MECON. Since the intention was for a Scheme and such deposits under Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act are the deposits, which were to be deposited in the Scheme, it cannot be stated that such deposits having not been made in the fund, cannot be taxed and therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are unsustainable.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent submits that since there was no Scheme in existence, therefore, it can be treated as a deposit and therefore, the same having been returned with 13 per cent interest, cannot be considered to be a taxable income.;