2015 (11) TMI 545 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal decision upheld on advances for raw materials lacking trade evidence. Appellant fails to substantiate trade claim.

M/s Paliwal Industries Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Income Tax

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that advances for raw material purchase were not for business purposes due to lack of documentary evidence ... Advances for purchase of raw material from two concerns being trade creditors as interest free loan - whether advances were made for commercial expediency? - Held that:- The Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal had concurrently concluded that the advance to M/s Chirag Spinning Mills amounting to ₹ 15 lacs appearing as opening balance had remained outstanding at the end of the year. The assessee had failed to show that the advance was made for purchase of yarn or for any other business transaction. Similarly, in the case of Dina Nath & Sons, there was opening balance of ₹ 2,69,659/- whereas against another purchase of ₹ 2,29,890/-, the assessee had made payment of ₹ 2,27,590/- retaining outstanding balance of ₹ 2,67,359/-. It was also held not to be for business purposes as the assessee had failed to explain why the purchase made during the year was not adjusted out of the said amount. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the assessee cannot claim any benefit by urging that no addition under similar circumstances was made by the then Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2005-06, as each year is independent and such addition depends upon facts and circumstances existing at the relevant time. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Treatment of advances for purchase of raw material as interest-free loan without documentary evidence.2. Perversity of the Tribunal's order.Analysis:1. The appellant-assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the treatment of advances for raw material purchase as interest-free loans without proper documentary evidence. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in concurring with the lower authorities without supporting evidence. The Assessing Officer disallowed interest paid on loans raised by the appellant to the extent of advances given to two concerns, amounting to Rs. 2,11,512. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its order, dismissed the appeal, prompting the appellant to approach the High Court.2. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the appellant had given interest-free advances to two concerns without charging any interest. The Assessing Officer asked for justification under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant claimed these were trade advances, but the CIT(A) and Tribunal found otherwise. The CIT(A) highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the business purpose of the advances. The Tribunal, while considering the submissions, noted the absence of documents proving the nature of the advances. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the advances were indeed trade-related, especially with the outstanding balances at year-end. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of interest was justified due to the lack of evidence supporting the business nature of the advances.3. The Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and Tribunal all concurred that the advances were not for business purposes based on the evidence presented. The Tribunal specifically mentioned the lack of documentation supporting the trade nature of the advances. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that the appellant failed to provide any documents to substantiate the claim that the advances were trade-related. The Court emphasized that each assessment year is independent, and the decision depends on the facts and circumstances of that year. As the findings were factual and not shown to be illegal or perverse, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling against the appellant on the substantial questions of law raised.