Jain Construction Co., JODHPUR V. DCIT, BARMER

ITA 537/JODH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 53723314 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI
• Assessee Lawyers: U C JAIN
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI .N.L. KALR A ) ITA NO.537/JU/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAN: ADEFJ 1736 G M/S. JAIN CONSTRUCTION CO. VS THE DCIT SARDARPURA, BARMER CIRCLE- BARMER (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI U.C. JAIN DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI G.R KOKANI DATE OF HEARING: 29-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09-12-2011 ORDER PER N.L. KALRA, AM:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), JODHPUR DATED 18-08-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2.0 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 13 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. D URING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. AR HAS PRESSED ONLY GROUNDS OF A PPEAL NOS. 3, 4 AND 7. 3.1 THE THIRD GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,06,540/- IN CONTRACT ACCOUNT. 3.2 THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE EXECUTION OF CON TRACT WORK. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COMPARATIVE OF GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2 A.Y. TURNOVER G.P. G.P.% N.P.% 2002-03 5,27,32,870 53,36,566 10.12% 2.08% 2003-04 4,37,62,856 53,74,078 12.21% 1.03% 2004-05 4,50,07,549 54,98,488 12.22% 0.89% 2005-06 5,48,46,737 65,26,761 11.90% 0.84% 2006-07 14,01,79,045 1,71,15,840 12.21% 4.83% FROM THE ABOVE CHAT, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN THE GROSS PROFIT AT 12.21% WHICH IS BETTER AS COMPARED TO PRECEDING YEA R. IT IS LOWER THAN THE GROSS PROFIT RATE DISCLOSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. BEFO RE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE AGREED THAT HE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY STOCK REGISTER OF MATERIAL C ONSUMED ON DAY TO DAY BASIS. THE QUANTITATIVE DETAIL OF CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL AND STOCK IN HAND IS NOT VERIFIABLE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO GIVE HEADWISE BREAKUP OF TH E EXPENSES. THE AUDITOR HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME PERSONAL EXPENSE S PERTAINING TO THE PARTNERS IN THE FORM OF TRAVELING EXPENSES, FOOD EXPENSES AND ENTER TAINMENT EXPENSES. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE HON'BLE JURISDCTIO NAL HIGH COURT UPHELD THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 12.5%. THE SAME WAS APPLIED FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2005-06 BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY THE AO APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 12.5% AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,06,540/-. 3.3 BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FAL L IN MARGIN OF PROFIT WAS NECESSITATED DUE TO RISE IN THE SCALE OF BUSINESS I N THE CURRENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, RESULTS OF THE CURRENT YEAR ARE NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE RES ULTS OF THE PRECEDING YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED CO NTRACT WORK IN BELOW RATE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON NET PROFIT RATE DECLARED BY SOME OTHER CONTRACTORS BUT FAILED TO SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT ANY SUCH INSTANCE WHERE UNDE R IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, A DIFFERENT RATE WAS DECLARED OR FINALLY ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED. THE 3 SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED. THE LD.CIT(A) THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,06,540/- AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER :- IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSES SEE IS THE BEST GUIDE TO DETERMINE THE RATE OF PROFIT. THE PAS T HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING FROM THE FACTS MENTIONED IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER ESTABLISHES THAT CONSISTENTLY IN THE PAST SEV ERAL YEARS THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DETERMINED B Y APPLYING A GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 12.5%. AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED A BOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY MATERIAL FACT WHICH COULD DISTINGUISH THE RELEVANT FACTS DURING THE CURRENT Y EAR FROM THOSE IN THE PAST YEARS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. EVIDENTLY, T HERE IS NO SCOPE BUT TO UPHOLD THE APPLICATION OF THE GROSS PROFIT R ATE OF 12.5% BY THE AO ON THE GROSS RECEIPT FOR DETERMINING THE GR OSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD IS UPHELD. THE APPEALS ON THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT ALLOWE D. 3.4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT BEEN ABLE TO PLACE ANY MATERIALS OR EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE CONTRACT WORKS WERE TAKEN ON BELOW SCHEDULE RATES. IT IS TRUE THAT PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE IS THE BEST GUIDE TO DETERMINE THE RATE OF PROFIT BUT IN CASE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE TU RNOVER THEN ONE WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER SOME DISCOUNT IS TO BE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION OF GROSS PROFIT RATE AS APPLIED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. DURING THE YEAR UNDE R REFERENCE, THE TURNOVER IS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14.01 CRORES AS AGAINST RS. 5.48 CROR ES OF THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE NET PROFIT RATE IS BETTER AS COMPARED TO PRECEDING YEAR. WE WI LL HAVE ALSO TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACTS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE AUDITOR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME PERSONAL EXPENSES PERTAINING TO THE PARTNERS IN THE FORM OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES, FOOD EXPENSES AND 4 ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES. WE THEREFORE, FEEL THAT IT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 2,03,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 4,06 ,547/- MADE BY THE AO. 4.1 THE FOURTH GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME BY DISALLOWING CLAIM OF SUB-LETTING COMMISSI ON AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,38,926/- PAID TO THE MAIN CONTRACTOR FROM WHOM THE WORK WAS RECEIVED ON THE BASIS OF THE PAYMENT OF SUBLET COMMISSION. 4.2 THE ABOVE REFERRED ADDITION IS ON ACCOUNT OF EN HANCEMENT OF INCOME BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) ISSUED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE THAT THE SUBLET COMMISSION IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION WHEN NET PROFIT RATE IS BEING APPLIED SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION NAMELY REMUNERATION AND INTEREST TO PARTNERS, DEPRE CIATION AND INTEREST TO THIRD PARTIES AS ALSO COMMISSION. 4.3 BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DED UCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUBLET COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE PAST AND TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF SUBLET COMMI SSION SEPARATELY FROM THE NET PROFIT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN T HE CASE OF M/S. BHAWAN VA PATH NIRMAN (BOHRA) AND CO.. THE LD.CIT(A) ENHANCED THE INCOME AFTER OBSERVING AT PAGE 7 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- ON GOING THROUGH THE WORK ACCOUNT AND P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31-3-2006 FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER COVER OF ITS LETTER DATED 30-06-2008, IT IS SEEN THAT AFTER DETE RMINATION OF GROSS PROFIT AT RS. 1,71,15,840/-, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURTHER DEDUCTE D EXPENSES ON SUBLET COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,38,926/- WHICH RESUL TED IN NET PROFIT OF RS. 67,71,407/- AFTER CLAIMING VARIOUS OTHER DEDUCT IONS. ON GOING THROUGH THE SUBLET AGREEMENT DATED 29-3-2006 BETWEEN PARASM AL AND MEWARAM, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF M/S JAIN CONSTRUCTION C O., COPY OF WHICH HAD 5 BEEN FURNISHED BY THE AR, IT IS SEEN THAT AS PER TH E TERMS AND CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE MAIN CONTRACTOR WI LL RECEIVE THE PAYMENTS OF BILL AND CREDIT AND CREDIT THE CHEQUE IN HIS BAN K ACCOUNT; IT HAS FURTHER BEEN PROVIDED THAT THE GROSS AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACC OUNT OF WORK EXECUTED BY THE SUB CONTRACTOR SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE ACCO UNT OF THE SUB CONTRACTOR AND TDS 2% SHALL BE REFUNDABLE TO THE SUB CONTRACTO R BY THE MAIN CONTRACTOR WHEN REFUND IS RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTM ENT. REGARDING SUBLET COMMISSION PAYABLE BY THE SUB CONTRACTOR, IT HAS BE EN PROVIDED THAT THE SUBLET COMMISSION PAYABLE BY THE SUB CONTRACTOR TO THE MAIN CONTRACTOR SHALL BE 1%. FROM THESE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE BEING THE SUB CONTRACTOR AND THE MAIN CONTRACTOR, I T IS CLEAR THAT THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUBLET COMMISSION ARISES AT THE MO MENT OF SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENT. THUS, THE LIABILITY WITH REGARD TO PAYME NT TO SUBLET COMMISSION CRYSTALLIZES PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF BILL AND CREDITS ON ACCOUNT OF EXECUTION OF CONTRACT BY THE SUBCONTRACT OR. THE GROSS RECEIPT IS ALSO TO BE RECEIVED BY CHEQUE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE MAIN CONTRACTOR AND AT NO STAGE THE CHEQUE OF THE GROSS AMOUNT IS R ECEIVED BY THE SUB CONTRACTOR IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THIS CLEARLY ESTABL ISHES THAT THE GROSS RECEIPT OF THE SUB CONTRACTOR IS THE RECEIPT OF PAY MENT RECEIVED AGAINST BILLS FROM THE CONTRACTEE DEPARTMENT AS REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF SUBLET COMMISSION. THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY AS PROVIDED I N THE SUBLET CONTRACT ACCORDING TO WHICH THE GROSS AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACC OUNT OF WORK EXECUTED BY THE SUB CONTRACTOR SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE SUB CONTRACTOR IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO DETERMINE THE MO MENT WHEN THE LIABILITY REGARDING PAYMENT OF SUBJECT COMMISSION C RYSTALLIZE WHICH AS HAS POINTED OUT ABOVE, HAD ALREADY CRYSTALLIZED AT THE MOMENT THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE TWO PARTIES. THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY PRECONDITION UPON FULFILLMENT OF WHICH THE AMOUNT O F SUBLET COMMISSION SHALL BECOME PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE MAIN CO NTRACTOR WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE SUBLET CO MMISSION CRYSTALLIZES THE MOMENT THE TWO PARTIES HAD ENTERED INTO THE AGREEME NT. THUS, IT IS CLEAR 6 THAT THE GROSS CONSIDERATION THAT THE SUB CONTRACTO R RECEIVED FOR EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IS THE AMOUNT OF GROSS RECEIPT RECE IVED BY THE MAIN CONTRACTOR FROM HE CONTRACTEE DEPARTMENT AS REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF SUBLET COMMISSION. THE MANNER OR THE MOMENT OF PAYM ENT OF SUBLET COMMISSION IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO DETERMINE THE MO MENT THE LIABILITY REGARDING SUBLET COMMISSION CRYSTALLIZED. THE ABOVE DISCUSSION CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE G ROSS RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXECUTION OF THE SUB CONTRACT IS R ESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE MAIN CONTRACTOR AS REDUCED BY THE SUBLET COMMISSION AND THE GP RATE IS APPLICABLE TO SUCH REDUCED AMOUN T AND NOT TO THE GROSS AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE MAIN CONTR ACTOR. FURTHER, AS THE AMOUNT OF SUBLET COMMISSION IS ALREADY REDUCED FROM THE GROSS AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE MAIN CONTRACTOR, THE SAME CANNOT BE AGAIN DEDUCTED FROM THE PROFIT DETERMINED ON APPLIC ATION OF GROSS PROFIT RATE. IN VIEW OF THIS, I HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RE CEIPT TO WHICH THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 12.5% IS TO BE APPLIED SHALL BE THE AMOUNT OF GROSS RECEIPT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE MAIN CONTRACTOR A S REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF SUBLET COMMISSION AND THAT NO FURTHER DED UCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF SUBLET COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT DETERMINED BY APPLYING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE. ACCOR DINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DETERMINE THE GROSS PROFIT O F THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE GP RATE OF 12.5% ON THE AMOUNT OF GROSS RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM THE MAIN CONTRACTOR AS REDUCED BY SUBLET COMMISSION WIT HOUT FURTHER ALLOWING REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF SUBLET COMMISSION FROM T HE GROSS PROFIT SO DETERMINED. THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH TH E DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETERMINING THE GROSS PRO FIT INCOMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS ABOVE. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, I ENHANCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TH E AMOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT DETERMINED AS PER DIRECTIONS ABOVE AND THE AMOUNT O F GROSS PROFIT DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. FURTHER, BY 7 CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF SUBLET COMMISSION FROM GROSS PROFIT WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 IS INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 274 SEPARATELY. 4.4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE AO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUBLET COMMISSION. IN THAT ASSESSMENT YE AR, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT ISSUED ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT AND THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY THE AO WAS NOT DISTURBED. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06, THE AO ALLOWED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUBLET COMMISSION AND IN THE APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT ISSUED ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT. ITAT JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF BHAWAN VA PATH NIRMAN (BOHRA) AND CO. VIDE ORDER DATED 28-05-2001 UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN WHICH SUBLETTING COMMISSION WAS HELD TO BE SEPAR ATELY ALLOWED. IT WILL BE USEFUL TO REPRODUCE PARA 8 AND 9 FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL DATED 28-05-2001 8. THE SECOND ISSUE RELATES TO THE ALLOWABILITY O F DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUBLETTING COMMISSION SEPARATELY FROM TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM CONTRACTING BUSINESS ESTIMATED BY APP LYING NET PROFIT RATE . THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN REVENUES APPEAL BEIN G ITA NO. 17(JDPP)/98 IN GROUND NO. 2 (SUB-PART) 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE EXECUTED CERTAIN CONTRACTS RECEIVED BY OTHER CONTRACTORS AND PAID COMMISSION ON SUCH MAIN CONTRACTOR AT THE AGREED RATE ON THE VALU E OF RELEVANT CONTRACT. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THIS EXPENDITURE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A REGULAR OR ROUTINE C ONTRACT EXPENSES AND N FACT THE PAYMENT OF SUCH COMMISSION TANTAMOUNTS TO THE DISTRIBUTION OR SHARING OF THE NORMAL PROFIT EARNED FROM THE EXECUT ION OF THE RELEVANT CONTRACT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS FULLY 8 JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTIO N IN RESPECT OF SUBLETTING COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,964/- PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE SEPARATELY FROM THE INCOME OF THE CONTRACTING BUSIN ESS ESTIMATED BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE. WE ,THEREFORE, UPHOLD HIS IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 4.5 THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN UPHELD B Y THE HON'BLE JURISDCTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE REPORTED AT 258 ITR 431. HENCE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDCTIONAL HIGH COURT , WE HOLD THAT THE LD.CIT( A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME BY DISALLOWING CLAIM OF SUBLET COMMISSION AM OUNTING TO RS.33,38,926/-. 5.1 THE LAST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE INTEREST OF RS. 2,51,241/- RECEIVED ON FDR, NSC ETC . PLEDGED WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR OBTAINING CONTRACT WORK AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. T HE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INTEREST PAID TO THIRD PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 35,83,211/-. INTEREST RECEIVED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,00,681/- WAS REDUCED FROM THE INTEREST FOR CLAIMI NG DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST PAID TO THIRD PARTIES. IN CASE INTEREST IS TO BE TR EATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THEN DEDUCTION OUT OF NET PROFIT RATE ON ACCOUNT OF INTE REST TO THIRD PARTIES WILL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 35,38,211/-. THUS IT I S ONLY A REVENUE NEUTRAL ISSUE. THE ITAT JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF RADHA KRISHAN BEN IWAL VS ACIT (ITA NO. 115/JU/09 DATED 09-07-2009) HELD THAT INTEREST IS TO BE TREAT ED AS BUSINESS INCOME BECAUSE FDRS AND NSCS WERE PURCHASED IN SUPPORT OF TENDERS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ACCEPTANCE. THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT SUCH FDRS A ND NSCS WERE NOT PURCHASED FOR SUBMITTING THE TENDERS. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT INTERES T SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE JODHPUR TRIBUN AL. 9 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09- 12-2011 SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (N.L. KALRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 09 /12/2011 MISHRA COPY TO: 1. M/S. JAIN CONSTRUCTION CO. , BARMER 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE- BARMER 3.THE LD. CIT (A) BY ORDER 4.THE CIT 5.THE D/R 6.THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO.537/JU/09) A.R.. ITAT: JAIPUR