Appeal partly allowed, delay condoned. Verify loan commercial expediency. Interest disallowed for PMIPL. Expenditure for income.

The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the commercial expediency of the loan to GPL for allowing the interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii). However, the interest expenditure related to the loan to PMIPL was disallowed. The Tribunal emphasized that expenditure must be incurred for earning income as per Section 57(iii) and not vice versa.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Disallowance of interest paid on overdraft against interest income.
3. Applicability of Section 57(iii) for deduction of interest expenditure.
4. Alternative claim under Section 36(1)(iii) for deduction of interest expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee filed the appeal late by one day, supported by an affidavit and a medical certificate. The delay was due to the assessee's illness from December 29, 2012, to January 4, 2013. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contentions and condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to proceed.

2. Disallowance of Interest Paid on Overdraft Against Interest Income:
The assessee declared a total income of Rs. 29,76,148/- and claimed a deduction of Rs. 16,68,880/- as interest expenditure paid to Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd. (SCBL) against the interest income of Rs. 46,50,337/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had fixed deposits (FDRs) with SCBL and had raised an overdraft of Rs. 1.87 crores against these FDRs. The funds from the overdraft were given as interest-free loans to two companies, PMIPL and GPL. The AO disallowed the deduction of interest expenditure under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing a direct nexus between the overdraft and the interest-free loans. The AO relied on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd., 286 ITR 1 (P&H).

3. Applicability of Section 57(iii) for Deduction of Interest Expenditure:
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the funds from the overdraft were given as interest-free loans to PMIPL and GPL, rebutting the presumption of the decision in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 221 CTR 435 (Bombay High Court). The CIT(A) concluded that there was a clear nexus between the overdraft and the interest-free loans, and thus, the interest expenditure could not be allowed under Section 57(iii).

4. Alternative Claim Under Section 36(1)(iii) for Deduction of Interest Expenditure:
The assessee argued that the interest expenditure should be allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) since the loans were given due to commercial expediency, especially to GPL, where the assessee is a Director. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in S.A. Builders Ltd., 288 ITR 1 (SC), which allows interest on borrowed funds if the funds are advanced as a measure of commercial expediency. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the interest-free loan to GPL was given for commercial expediency and to allow the interest expenditure accordingly. However, the interest expenditure attributable to the loan given to PMIPL was not allowed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the AO to verify the commercial expediency of the loan to GPL for allowing the interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii). The interest expenditure attributable to the loan to PMIPL was disallowed. The Tribunal emphasized that the expenditure must be incurred for earning income as per Section 57(iii) and not vice versa, as held in CIT v. V. Gopinathan, 248 ITR 449 (SC).

---