2013 (12) TMI 1263 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds Tribunal's decision on Interest Disallowance in Income Tax Appeal

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in an Income Tax Appeal regarding the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for Project ... Disallowance of interest on capital borrowed for capital WIP - Held that:- AO did not give clear finding on the issue and made adhoc disallowance of 15 % from the profit and loss account - There is no finding recorded by AO that the textile project was not by way of expansion of business - The interest on the borrowed amount for the project was to be allowed as revenue expenditure, as held by the Tribunal - The Tribunal being final court of accepting any finding has found justification in the order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 14,52,654/- because on the facts of the case that the assessee had used the funds for the purpose of its business - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Interpretation of disallowance of interest relating to borrowed capital of Project Work-in-Progress for assessment year 1995-96 under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961.Analysis:The High Court dealt with an Income Tax Appeal concerning the disallowance of interest amounting to &8377; 14,52,654 related to borrowed capital for Project Work-in-Progress during the assessment year 1995-96. The central question revolved around the legality of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision in disallowing the said interest. The Tribunal's decision was based on the premise that even if borrowed funds were utilized for expanding the assessee's business, the interest thereon was to be considered as a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO failed to establish a direct nexus between the borrowed funds and any non-business purposes. The Tribunal referred to various case laws to support its stance on allowing interest as a business expenditure when funds are used for business expansion.The appellant contended that the AO had disallowed 15% of the interest as the amount to be capitalized for the work in progress, but the Tribunal found this approach factually incorrect. The Tribunal highlighted that during the relevant year, fresh funds utilization was significantly lower than the amount considered by the AO. The High Court observed that the AO did not provide a clear finding that the textile project was not part of the business expansion, thus supporting the Tribunal's decision to allow the interest as a revenue expenditure.Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal's role as the final court for accepting findings justified the deletion of the &8377; 14,52,654 addition by the CIT (A). The High Court refused to delve into further details, noting that the AO's lack of a clear finding and the Tribunal's factual assessment provided no grounds for interference. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, dismissing the Income Tax Appeal.