2015 (8) TMI 1445 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed on interest payment & expenses disallowance. CIT(A) decision upheld by Tribunal.

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-34 (1) Versus Ashok Wadia,

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-34 (1) Versus Ashok Wadia, - TMI Issues:- Disallowance of interest payment on borrowed funds- Disallowance of various expenses under the head 'income from other sources'Disallowance of Interest Payment on Borrowed Funds:The appeal involved the Revenue challenging the order of CIT(A) deleting an addition of Rs. 39,76,476 on account of interest payment on borrowed funds for the assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest amount as the assessee failed to prove that the expenses were wholly and exclusively incurred in relation to income earned under the head 'income from other sources.' The CIT(A) deleted the addition by relying on case laws and finding that the borrowings were utilized in investments to earn interest, justifying the deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) emphasized that the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate his allegation with evidence, and additions cannot be made based on presumption, conjecture, or surmise. The CIT(A) concluded that the case of the assessee was covered by relevant case laws, hence deleting the addition.Disallowance of Various Expenses under 'Income from Other Sources':The second issue pertained to the disallowance of various expenses totaling Rs. 10,03,861 under the head 'income from other sources.' The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses, stating they were not incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income under this head. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, highlighting that the Assessing Officer did not provide any material to suggest the expenses were not related to earning income under the specified head. The CIT(A) noted the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct any verification or investigation to disprove the submissions of the assessee. The CIT(A) emphasized that tax liability cannot be imposed based on presumption, surmise, or conjecture. Ultimately, the CIT(A) held that the additions were not justified as the expenses were incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that once expenses are incurred wholly or exclusively for business purposes, no disallowance can be made. The Tribunal also noted the absence of contradictory material from the Revenue and the lack of similar additions in prior or subsequent years, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.