itl17.19.odt 1/2 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2019 (The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vrs. Madhu Kumar Bajaj) Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for appellant/Department Shri Jehngir Mistry, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Vasanti Patel with S.C.Thakar, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATE: 23rd JANUARY, 2020. dispute pertains to tax liability of .1,35,24,374/- for financial year ending on 31.03.2011. assessee is said to have advanced loan of .42,32,40,640/- to one Shri S.K.Daga, on which undisputedly assessee had been regularly receiving interest. tax was also deducted at source in respect of payment of interest. method of accounting followed was on accrual of income basis. Accordingly, for financial year ending on 31.03.2011, tax at source was deducted of .54,71,020/- by said Shri Daga towards interest liability of .4,92,39,220/-. Shri Daga has expired in month of May-2011 i.e. after end of financial year. assessee, therefore, changed method of accounting and converted it on cash basis . ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2020 11:35:54 ::: itl17.19.odt 2/2 Assessing Officer added interest of .4,37,68,200/- in income of assessee as per order dated 21.11.2013. In appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in favour of assessee and order passed by Assessing Officer was quashed and set aside. It is for assessee to decide as to which method of accounting is to be followed. It is permissible for him to change method of accounting. We do not find any finding recorded by authorities below that change in method of accounting was with intention of having some pecuniary gain or to avoid tax liability. It is not case of Department that entire amount of interest was received by assessee after death of Shri Daga. One can understand that amount of interest is received and payment of tax is avoided. But this is not case here. assessee is not liable to pay tax on income which he never received. Though borrower deducted tax at source, assessee has been assessed for TDS of .54,71,020/-. In such situation, we do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration in appeal. It is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2020 11:35:54 ::: Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Madhu Kumar Bajaj