2016 (4) TMI 464 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms CIT(A) decisions on interest-free loan, goods claim, and excess depreciation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete the additions made by the AO regarding an interest-free loan to a sister concern and the disallowance ... Addition on account of interest free loan to sister concern from interest bearing funds - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It is evident that the CIT(A) first of all holds that assessee’s sister concern has already paid substantial incentive in the shape of extra discount of ₹ 57,86,650/- in the impugned assessment year followed by ₹ 1,58,66,599/- in the succeeding assessment year. Coming to the fact as to whether the assessee invested its interest bearing funds in its sister concern or not, the lower appellate findings under challenge read that the assessee’s non-interest bearing funds are much more than the investments in question. The CIT(A) follows hon’ble Bombay high court decision in Reliance Utilities and Power ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] drawing presumption of utilization of non-interest bearing funds in such an eventuality. There can hardly be any dispute on the former aspect that similar investments involving commercial expediency based on facts do not invite any interest disallowance as held in SA Builders’ case (2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT ). The Revenue does not refer to any evidence on record rebut both these factual findings. We find no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s order directing to delete the impugned interest disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of claim for bogus/expired and damaged goods - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case it is practice in the pharmaceuticals business that some products have to be expired or damages and all the retailers are not able to sell the goods within expiry of date, even branded goods some time expired. The appellant had shown expiry of goods’ percentage more than 4%. During the year, goods expired was ₹ 7,94,441/- and goods replaced at ₹ 1,46,60,484/- which is 2.46%, is reasonable. Keeping in view the past history of the assessee, the ld. A.O. had not brought on record any evidence that the appellant had made sale outside the books. Even, no evidence during the course of search were found, which was relevant to A.Y. 2005-06. The Settlement Commission also accepted the assessee’s disclosure of further any additional disclosure on this issue. Thus, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A).- Decided in favour of assessee Excess depreciation allowance - Held that:- The Revenue invites our attention to paper book pages 81 to 92 comprising of the CIT(A)’s order for assessment year 2008-09 allowing assessee’s claim of depreciation @ 10% against that claim @ 15%. Both parties expressed agreement that the same can be followed even in the impugned assessment year as well. We accordingly accept this third substantive ground for statistical purposes and direct the Assessing Officer to pass a consequential order as in tune with the CIT(A)’s order in succeeding assessment year by adopting judicial consistency. - Decided on favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition on account of interest-free loan to sister concern from interest-bearing funds.2. Deletion of disallowance of claim for bogus/expired and damaged goods.3. Deletion of excess depreciation allowance.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Interest-Free Loan to Sister Concern from Interest-Bearing Funds:The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 45,81,105/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning an interest-free loan to a sister concern from interest-bearing funds. The AO had questioned the utilization of interest-bearing funds for this investment and subsequently disallowed the interest. The CIT(A) reversed this finding, stating that the AO did not examine the issue properly and that the investment was made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The CIT(A) referenced the Supreme Court's decision in S.A. Builders, which held that interest on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed if the loan to the sister concern was for commercial expediency. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investment, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., which presumes that investments are made from interest-free funds if available. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the investment was from interest-free funds and that the AO's disallowance of interest was unjustified.2. Deletion of Disallowance of Claim for Bogus/Expired and Damaged Goods:The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 44,07,572/- for bogus/expired and damaged goods. The AO had estimated the goods damaged/expired at 2% of sales based on statements from the assessee's employees and disallowed the excess claim. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the AO relied on statements from employees not responsible for sales or goods return and did not corroborate these statements with documentary evidence. The CIT(A) also pointed out that the AO did not reject the books of accounts under section 145 before making the estimate. The Tribunal referred to an earlier decision in the assessee's favor for the assessment year 2006-07, which found that the AO had not provided evidence of sales outside the books or unaccounted purchases. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no distinction in the relevant facts between the two assessment years.3. Deletion of Excess Depreciation Allowance:The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) wrongly deleted the excess depreciation allowance of Rs. 1,02,270/- out of Rs. 3,28,947/- made by the AO. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's claim of depreciation at 10% against the AO's claim of 15%. Both parties agreed to follow the CIT(A)'s order for the subsequent assessment year 2008-09, which allowed the depreciation claim. The Tribunal accepted this ground for statistical purposes and directed the AO to pass a consequential order consistent with the CIT(A)'s order in the succeeding assessment year, maintaining judicial consistency.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the first two issues, finding that the AO's disallowances were unjustified and that the investments and claims were properly supported by evidence and legal precedents. On the third issue, the Tribunal directed the AO to follow the CIT(A)'s order for the subsequent assessment year to maintain consistency. The Revenue's appeal was partly accepted for statistical purposes.