Revenue expenditure and appellate jurisdiction limits led to deletion of interest disallowance and new capital gains addition.

Interest on borrowing used for business needs, including voluntary retirement scheme payments, was treated as revenue expenditure because the borrowing continued to serve the business and had been accepted in earlier and later years; the disallowance was deleted. The first appellate authority also could not introduce long-term capital gains from a new source of income that had not been brought to tax in the assessment order, as such a fresh source could not be assessed for the first time in appeal; the addition was deleted. The ITAT thus set aside the additions and allowed the assessee's appeal in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest on the loan taken for employee separation and business funding, claimed in respect of the surviving unit, was allowable as revenue expenditure and the disallowance was sustainable; (ii) whether the first appellate authority could make an addition on account of long-term capital gains from a source of income not brought to tax in the assessment order.

Issue (i): Whether interest on the loan taken for employee separation and business funding, claimed in respect of the surviving unit, was allowable as revenue expenditure and the disallowance was sustainable.

Analysis: The interest related to a borrowing made for the company's business needs, including payment under the voluntary retirement scheme. The same borrowing component had been accepted in earlier and subsequent years. The winding-up proceedings were still pending, and the borrowing could not be confined only to the operational unit so as to treat the interest as disconnected from the business. The expenditure was thus of a revenue character.

Conclusion: The disallowance of interest was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the first appellate authority could make an addition on account of long-term capital gains from a source of income not brought to tax in the assessment order.

Analysis: The assessment order had not considered any capital gains addition, and the alleged gain arose from a new source of income. In such a situation, the appellate authority could not assess that new source for the first time. The proper course, if available in law, lay under the reassessment or revisionary provisions, not by introducing a fresh source in appeal.

Conclusion: The addition on account of long-term capital gains was beyond jurisdiction and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full, and the additions made by the lower authorities were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on borrowing used for business purposes, including voluntary retirement payments, is revenue expenditure when the borrowing continues to serve the business, and a first appellate authority cannot introduce and tax a new source of income not considered in the assessment order.

---