2017 (1) TMI 1321 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty upheld for interest expenses disallowance under Income Tax Act despite genuine intent.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for disallowance of interest expenses. Despite the appellant's arguments on ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - nexus between the advance bearing funds and the loan advanced to the partner - Held that:- The undisputed facts that emerged from the record are that the assessee firm had advanced a loan of ₹ 2,56,76,179/- on which no interest has been charged assuming that the assessee was having interest free funds in the form of capital introduced by the partner and the other interest deposits of ₹ 10,74,969/- and ₹ 2,12,284/- respectively, even than the money so advanced exceeded the interest free funds. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that this loan was given out of the interest bearing funds on which the assessee had claimed interest. Under these facts, we are unable to accept the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ). The assessee has not placed any material suggesting that the issue is debatable in view of the fact that there is a direct nexus between the advance bearing funds and the loan advanced to the partner. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A), the same is hereby affirmed. - Decided against assessee. Issues:Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for disallowance of interest expenses.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for disallowance of interest expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed interest claimed on interest-free loans given to a partner for non-business purposes. The penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a similar case. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that the interest expenses were genuinely incurred, all relevant information was disclosed, and there was no malafide intention. The appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that inaccurate particulars refer to details not accurate or correct. The appellant distinguished the case cited by the CIT (A) where a penalty was confirmed for a capital loss claim contrary to accounting principles.The appellant's counsel contended that the loan was advanced out of an overdraft facility, and the partner had introduced capital without interest charges. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the loan was not for business purposes, and the interest-free funds exceeded the loan amount. The Tribunal examined the facts and held that the loan exceeded interest-free funds, and there was a direct nexus between the advance-bearing funds and the loan given. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments, rejected the appeal, and affirmed the penalty imposed by the CIT (A).In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of interest expenses. The decision was based on the direct nexus between the interest-bearing funds and the interest-free loan given to the partner, despite the appellant's arguments regarding disclosure and lack of malafide intention. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of accurate disclosure and adherence to accounting principles in claiming expenses to avoid penalties under tax laws.