2016 (9) TMI 1583 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed: Tax Addition and Interest Disallowance Confirmed, No Further Legal Questions Identified.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI Versus MUNI RAM VERMA, PROP. BALAJI CHAIN CO.

The HC dismissed the appeal, affirming the CIT (A) and ITAT's decisions. On the first issue, the court upheld the addition of Rs. 1 lac under Section ... Additions u/s 16 (8) - income returned by the assessee/respondent - AO added amounts advanced by 18 unsecured creditors - revenue argues that the approach of the CIT (A) and the ITAT was incorrect because the assessee did not produce further details apart from the bank account particulars and the documents furnished - HELD THAT:- This court is unpersuaded with these submissions. Reading of the order of CIT (A) shows that remand specifically was sought; after considering the remand report and submission of both the parties, the CIT (A) was satisfied that the documents particularly the bank accounts statements revealed that the creditors were not fictitious but rather had genuine accounts and that they were also filing income tax returns. Given the factual nature of these findings, the court is of the opinion that the proper test to discern the identity genuineness of the transaction and the credit worthiness of parties lending the amount – as required by law, especially in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Export (P) Ltd. [2008 (1) TMI 575 - SC ORDER] has been followed. No question of law arises. Disallowance of interest on the borrowings used for acquisition of non-business assets and non-business purposes - HELD THAT:- The court notices that CIT(A) had modified the findings after an overall appreciation of the facts. Instead of initial disallowance – which was in excess of ₹ 55 lacs, the appellate commissioner brought down the figure of disallowance to ₹ 3.69 lacs. That has been affirmed by the ITAT. Besides being entirely factual, the court is of the opinion that the AO‟s order itself is silent on the particulars as to the advances attributable to the specific assets upon which interest was sought to be disallowed on three counts. No question of law arises on this aspect as well. Issues:1. Additions made under Section 16(8) of the Income Tax Act to the income returned by the assessee.2. Disallowance of interest on borrowings used for acquisition of non-business assets and non-business purposes.Analysis:Issue 1: Additions under Section 16(8) of the Income Tax Act:The revenue raised two questions of law regarding the additions made under Section 16(8) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) added amounts advanced by 18 unsecured creditors, totaling &8377; 1,95,02,979. The appellant provided details and documentary evidence related to the creditors, but the AO was not satisfied. Upon appeal, additional evidence was presented, leading to a remand report being sought by the CIT (A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. After reviewing the remand report, the CIT (A) sustained the addition only concerning &8377; 1 lac advanced by a specific entity. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld these findings. The revenue contended that the approach of the CIT (A) and the ITAT was incorrect due to the lack of additional details beyond bank account particulars and furnished documents.The High Court found the submissions unpersuasive. It noted that the CIT (A) specifically sought a remand, and after considering the report and submissions, was satisfied with the documents, particularly bank account statements, which indicated genuine creditors filing income tax returns. The court held that the test to determine the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the lending parties, as mandated by law and established in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Export (P) Ltd., was appropriately followed. Consequently, no legal question arose from these findings.Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest on Borrowings for Non-business Assets:Regarding the disallowance of interest on borrowings used for non-business assets, the CIT (A) modified the initial findings after a comprehensive review of facts. The initial disallowance exceeding &8377; 55 lacs was reduced to &8377; 3.69 lacs. This modification was upheld by the ITAT. The High Court observed that the AO's order did not specify the advances related to the specific assets for which interest disallowance was sought, on three counts. As this issue was factual and lacked legal implications, the court concluded that no legal question arose in this regard.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as lacking merit based on the detailed analysis of both issues presented before it.