Judgment :- Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Interest Tax Act is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated April 26, 2004 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Calcutta in Interest Tax Appeal No.43(Kol.)/2003 for the Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99 dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal may be summed up thus: a) The assessee derives income from lease-rent, dividend, interest, brokerage and commission and for the Assessment Year 1997-98, the appellant filed its return under the Interest Tax showing chargeable interest of Rs.12,26,652/-. b) The Assessing Officer in computation of chargeable interest for the levy of the interest tax for the said period under Section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act arrived at the figure of Rs.32,36,080/- after addition of Rs.20,09,431/- on account of bill discounting charge. c) Being dissatisfied, the assessee preferred an appeal against the said order and one of the points taken in the appeal was that the appellant was not at all chargeable to Interest Tax Act and due to mistake, the return was submitted under the said Act. d) The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, turned down such point and held that the appellant was a Credit Institution within the meaning of Sections 2(5A) and 2(5B) of the said Act. The said appellate authority further turned down the claim of the appellant that the income from brokerage and syndicate fees could not come within the purview of interest and thus, was not chargeable under the Interest Tax Act. The appeal filed by the appellant was, thus, dismissed. e) Being dissatisfied, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal below and by the order impugned herein, the said Court has affirmed those passed by the CIT (Appeals). The appeal filed by the appellant was, thus, dismissed. e) Being dissatisfied, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal below and by the order impugned herein, the said Court has affirmed those passed by the CIT (Appeals). f) A Division Bench of this Court at the time of admission of the present appeal formulated the following substantial questions of law: “(I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in applying by implication the doctrine of estoppel against the assessee’s contention for immunity from the charge of Interest tax under the Interest Tax Act 1974 and in declining to adjudicate on it merely for reason of the assessee’s merely for reason of the assessee’s acquiescence in taxation in the past. “(II) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the recognition of the assessee by the Reserve Bank of India as a Non-banking Financial Institution, renders it liable to the charge of interest tax, irrespective of the definition of a financial company under Section 2(5B). “(III) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal should have held that the incomes of the assessee by way of syndication fees and brokerages, are in the nature of professional income, not forming any part of chargeable interest for the purpose of taxation under the Interest Tax Act in the light of the provisions of Section 2(5B) (iv) read with Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act. “(IV) If the answer is in the affirmative, whether the assessee is at all liable to the charge of Interest Tax Act because those professional incomes constitute the principal components of the assessee’s total income by far exceeding 51% thereof.” In order to appreciate the points involved herein, it will be apposite to refer to the following provisions of the Interest-tax Act and those are quoted below: “2. DEFINITIONS. DEFINITIONS. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - 1) "assessee" means a person by whom interest-tax, or any other sum of money, is payable under this Act and includes - (a) every person in respect of whom any proceeding under this Act has been taken for the assessment of his chargeable interest or of the amount of refund due to him or of the chargeable interest of any other person in respect of which he is assessable or of the amount of refund due to such other person; (b) every person who is deemed to be an assessee in default under any provision of this Act; (5A) "credit institution" means, - (i) a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of that Act); (ii) a public financial institution as defined in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iii) a State financial corporation established under section 3 or section 3A or an institution notified under section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951); and (iv) any other financial company; (5B) "financial company" means a company, other than a company referred to in sub-clause (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (5A), being – (i) a hire-purchase finance company, that is to say, a company which carries on, as its principal business, hire-purchase transactions or the financing of such transactions; (ii) an investment company, that is to say, a company which carries on, as its principal business, the acquisition of shares, stock, bonds, debentures, debenture stock, or securities issued by the Government or a local authority, or other marketable securities of a like nature; (iii) a housing finance company, that is to say, a company which carries on, as its principal business, the business of financing of acquisition or construction of houses, including acquisition or development of land in connection therewith; (iv) a loan company, that is to say, a company [not being a company referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii)] which carries on, as its principal business, the business of providing finance, whether by making loans or advances or otherwise; (v) a mutual benefit finance company, that is to say, a company which carries on, as its principal business, the business of acceptance of deposits from its members and which is declared by the Central Government under section 620A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), to be a Nidhi or Mutual Benefit Society; (va) a residuary non-banking company [other than a financial company referred to in sub-clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v)], that is to say, a company which receives any deposit under any scheme or arrangement, by whatever name called, in one lump sum or in installments by way of contributions or subscriptions or by sale of units or certificates or other instruments or in any other manner; (vi) a miscellaneous finance company, that is to say, a company which carries on exclusively, or almost exclusively, two or more classes of business referred to in the preceding sub-clauses; (7) "interest" means interest on loans and advances made in India and includes - (a) commitment charges on unutilised portion of any credit sanctioned for being availed of in India; and (b) discount on promissory notes and bills of exchange drawn or made in India, but does not include – (i) interest referred to in sub-section (1B) of section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934); (ii) discount on treasury bills; “4. CHARGE OF TAX. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be charged on every scheduled bank for every assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1975, a tax in this Act referred to as interest-tax in respect of its chargeable interest of the previous year at the rate of seven per cent of such chargeable interest: Provided that the rate at which interest-tax shall be charged in respect of any chargeable interest accruing or arising after the 31st day of March, 1983 shall be three and a half per cent of such chargeable interest. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained sub-section (1) but subject to the other provisions of this Act, there shall be charged on every credit institution for every assessment year commencing on and from the 1st day of April, 1992, interest-tax in respect of its chargeable interest of the previous year at the rate of three per cent of such chargeable interest. Provided that the rate at which interest-tax shall be charged in respect of any chargeable interest accruing or arising after the 31st day of March, 1997, shall be two per cent. of such chargeable interest. “5. SCOPE OF CHARGEABLE INTEREST. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the chargeable interest of any previous year of a credit institution shall be the total amount of interest (other than interest on loans and advances made to other credit institutions or to any co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking) accruing or arising to the credit institution in that previous year : Provided that any interest in relation to categories of bad or doubtful debts referred to in section 43D of the Income-tax Act shall be deemed to accrue or arise to the credit institution in the previous year in which it is credited by the credit institution to its profit and loss account for that year or, as the case may be, in which it is actually received by the credit institution, whichever is earlier. “6. COMPUTATION OF CHARGEABLE INTEREST. “6. COMPUTATION OF CHARGEABLE INTEREST. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), in computing the chargeable interest of a previous year, there shall be allowed from the total amount of interest (other than interest on loans and advances made to credit institutions) accruing or arising to the assessee in the previous year, a deduction in respect of the amount of interest which is established to have become a bad debt during the previous year: Provided that such interest has been taken into account in computing the chargeable interest of the assessee of an earlier previous year and the amount has been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year during which it is established to have become a bad debt. Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that in computing the chargeable interest of a previous year, no deduction, other than the deduction specified in this sub-section, shall be allowed from the total amount of interest accruing or arising to the assessee. (2) In computing the chargeable interest of a previous year, the amount of interest which accrues or arises to the assessee before the 1st day of August, 1974, or after the 28th day of February, 1978 during the period commencing on the 1st day of March, 1978, and ending with the 30th day of June, 1980 during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1985 and ending with the 30th day of September, 1991, shall not be taken into account.” As regards the first point formulated by the Division Bench in this appeal, we agree with Mr. Bagchi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee, that in the field of taxation, there is no estoppel against a person for his erroneous submission of return under a wrong impression that he was an assessee under the Act. In order to assess a person chargeable to tax under the Act, the Revenue must be satisfied that the person submitting return is really taxable under the Act. In the case before us, however, the Tribunal below has after holding that the appellant is chargeable to tax affirmed the order of the appellate authority. Thus, in this case, the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal has not been dismissed only on the ground of estoppel. In the case before us, however, the Tribunal below has after holding that the appellant is chargeable to tax affirmed the order of the appellate authority. Thus, in this case, the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal has not been dismissed only on the ground of estoppel. We, therefore, answer the first point by holding that there is no estoppel against a person for filing a return under the Act if he is otherwise really found to be not subject to the tax and at the same time, hold that the Tribunal has not dismissed the claim of the appellant solely on the ground of estoppel. As regards the second point formulated by the Division Bench, we find that the appellant is definitely a “credit institution” within the meaning of Section 2(5A) of the Act being “any other financial company” within the meaning of clause (iv) of the said Section 2(5A) as it comes within the purview of at least a loan company, that is to say, a company [not being a company referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii)] which carries on, as its principal business, the business of providing finance, whether by making loans or advances or otherwise within the meaning of clause (iv) of Section 2 (5B) of the Act. It appears from its financial statements that it gives advances to others and also makes arrangements for providing loan to others by taking brokerage and syndication fees and thus, falls within the purview of the expression “which carries on, as its principal business, the business of providing finance, whether by making loans or advances or otherwise.” In our opinion, making arrangement for procuring loan from others on acceptance of brokerage and syndication fees also amounts to doing “business of providing finance otherwise”. If we take into account the income of the appellant from providing loan by itself as well as the brokerage charges and syndication fees received by it for providing loan through others and compare the addition of those with the total income of the appellant received from all the sources, it can be unhesitantly concluded that its principal business is of providing loan to others. We, therefore, answer the second question by holding that the appellant is a credit institution which would appear from its own statement of account and thus, comes within the purview of the Interest tax Act and such finding can be arrived at without taking into consideration the fact that the Reserve Bank of India has recognised it as a non-banking financial institution. As regards the third question formulated by the Division Bench, we agree with the learned Advocate for the appellant that syndication fees and brokerage received by the appellant for making arrangement for providing finance to others through other financiers are really the professional fees received by the appellant for making such arrangement and can by no stretch of imagination be called interest within the meaning of the Act. As provided in Section 2(7) of the Act quoted above, brokerage charge and syndication fees taken from the clients by the appellant for making arrangement for providing finance through other financiers cannot come within the purview of interest on loans and advances made in India including (a) commitment charges on unutilised portion of any credit sanctioned for being availed of in India; or (b) discount on promissory notes and bills of exchange drawn or made in India. Thus, we answer the third question in the affirmative and against the Revenue and direct the Assessing Officer to deduct the amount of brokerage and the syndication fees received by the appellant from the taxable income of the Appellant under the present Act. As regards the last question, although we answer the third question in affirmative, the income arising out of brokerage and syndication fees should be treated to be the income of the appellant for all practical purposes including the purpose of ascertaining the principal business of the assessee. The income under the heading brokerage and syndication fees is also received by the appellant from its business of providing finance to others through other financiers though it does not amount to interest. The income under the heading brokerage and syndication fees is also received by the appellant from its business of providing finance to others through other financiers though it does not amount to interest. Thus, if we take into account the said amount as its income from business for providing finance to others, it would appear that more than 50% income of the appellant comes from the business of providing finance to others and thus, the principal business of the appellant is to provide finance to others either by giving such loan by itself or by making arrangement for loan through others thereby bringing itself within the purview of a credit institution. We, thus, answer the last question formulated by the Division Bench by holding that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case although the income of the assessee by way of syndication fees and brokerages, are in the nature of professional income, not forming any part of chargeable interest for the purpose of taxation under the Interest Tax Act and those should be excluded, yet, in the light of the provisions of Section 2(5B) (iv) of the Act, the appellant is chargeable to tax under the Act for the other interest received by it including the bill discounting charges. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is modified only to the extent that the Assessing Officer in computing the chargeable amount under the Act should exclude the brokerage and the syndication fees received by the appellant for providing finance to its clients through other financier as those are not “interest” within the meaning of the Act. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.