IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2009 WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2009 WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2009 WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 348 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 348 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 348 OF 2009 WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2009 WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2009 WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax-11, Mumbai. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Srikant G. Shah. ... Respondent. Vimal Gupta with P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. S.E.Dastur, senior counsel with Nitesh Joshi and Ms.Sheetal Shah i/b. Mehta & Girdharlal for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 20th April 2009. : 20th April 2009. : 20th April 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Appeal Nos.331/2009; 348/2009 and 350/2009 are not on board. By consent of parties they are taken on board for final disposal along with other appeals which are on board. 2. In all these appeals, filed under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act" fir short), the following questions of law are sought to be raised by the appellant- Revenue: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in deleting the interest income offered voluntarily and paid self assessment tax? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in rectifying its order dated 30.11.2004? 3. Since all these appeals involve identical questions of law based on common facts, they are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Heard finally. Perused appeals. 5. The appellant in all these appeals is a Solicitor practising at Mumbai. He disclosed in the return, income by way of interest earned on the deposits of his clients, without prejudice to his rights to contend that it is not an income earned by him as such it cannot be treated as his income for the purpose of assessment under the Act. 6. The Tribunal after considering his submission deleted the same relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Tanubai D. C.I.T. v. Tanubai D. C.I.T. v. Tanubai D. Desai Desai Desai, (1972) 84 ITR 713; wherein this Court ruled as under: " ..... As seen earlier, the relevant rules of this High Court do not permit a solicitor to treat the moneys received by him from or on account of his clients as his personal moneys and such moneys are held by him in a fiduciary capacity. Even the income received from such moneys must equally be held by the solicitor in a fiduciary capacity. What the solicitor actually does with the income, i.e., whether he appropriates it to himself or not, is, in our opinion, a matter of no consequence. If he appropriates it to himself, it would simply amount to a breach of his fiduciary relationship and whatever may be the consequences in law would follow. But his unauthorised act of converting any part of the corpus or even the income derived therefrom which is not in accordance with the provisions of the rules of this High Court would not convert those amounts held by him in a fiduciary capacity into moneys held by him beneficially for himself....." 7. The Revenue has come up in appeal contending that if the income by way of interest earned on clients’ deposits was declared by the assessee as his income on his own, then the assessing officer was perfectly justified in assessing the same in the hands of the respondent- assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the same. Consideration Consideration Consideration : : : ------------- ------------- ------------- 8. Having heard both parties, we may place it on record that the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Daga, J) is a party, in the case of Balmukund Balmukund Balmukund Acharya v. Deputy C.I.T., Acharya v. Deputy C.I.T., Acharya v. Deputy C.I.T., (2009) 310 ITR 310, ruled that if any assessee under mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. While taking this view reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in C.I.T. C.I.T. C.I.T. v. Smt.Archana R. Dhanwatay v. Smt.Archana R. Dhanwatay v. Smt.Archana R. Dhanwatay, (1982) 136 ITR 355 and Nirmala L. Mehta v. A.Balasubramaniam, CIT Nirmala L. Mehta v. A.Balasubramaniam, CIT Nirmala L. Mehta v. A.Balasubramaniam, CIT, (2004) 269 ITR 1 to which one of us (Deodhar, J.) is a party. 9. If the questions raised in this appeal are tested on the aforesaid reported judgments of this Court, on merits as well as on propriety, one can hardly say that any substantial question of law is involved in these appeals. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted since it is based on the law laid down by this Court and accepted by the Revenue. 10. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) J.) J.) (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA J.) J.) J.)