2017 (3) TMI 275 - HC - Income Tax

Income Tax Tribunal upholds trade advance as commercially expedient, rejecting Revenue's challenge.

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur Versus M/s Ghari Industries Pvt. Ltd.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning a loan categorized as a trade advance given to a company without establishing ... Addition u/s 40A - Held that:- We find that in this case the appellate authorities have gone into the facts of the case and, thereafter, reached the conclusion of existence of commercial expediency. The findings recorded by both the authorities are correct and no infirmity has been shown. Therefore, the questions of law raised in the memo of appeal are answered in favour of the assessee Issues:1. Justification of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue concerning a loan given to a company, categorized as a trade advance, without establishing a direct nexus between borrowed funds and the advance provided.Analysis:The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was based on the Tribunal's order regarding the assessment year 2006-07. The primary issue revolved around the nature of a loan given to M/s Calcutta Detergents Ltd. The Revenue contended that the loan was interest-bearing and directly linked to the borrowed funds, emphasizing the lack of interest-free funds in the assessee's possession. However, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld the commercial expediency of the advance, as M/s Calcutta Detergents Ltd exclusively manufactured products for the assessee, justifying the advance made.The assessing officer disallowed interest on borrowed funds under Section 40A(2)(b) and Section 36 of the Income Tax Act due to the interest-free nature of the loan to the sister concern. The CIT (Appeals) accepted the commercial expediency argument put forth by the assessee, highlighting the availability of sufficient funds to cover the advance amount. The Tribunal further supported this stance, emphasizing the commercial necessity of the advance given the exclusive manufacturing arrangement between the companies.The Revenue's argument regarding the proportionality of the advance in relation to sales was countered by the established commercial expediency accepted by the appellate authorities. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Tribunal emphasized the wide scope of commercial expediency, rejecting the Revenue's claim to determine reasonableness of expenditure. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts, concluding that the commercial necessity of the advance was valid, and thus, the questions of law raised were resolved in favor of the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals) regarding commercial expediency and the availability of surplus funds with the assessee. The judgment favored the assessee, emphasizing the importance of commercial necessity in justifying business transactions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue.