2019 (1) TMI 392 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Disallowance of Interest Claim

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the interest claim under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant failed to prove that ... Disallowing interest claim u/s 36(1)(iii) - unsecured loan was not used for business purpose - Held that:- Assessee’s balance-sheet as on 31.03.2009 statement of unsecured loan, treading and profit and loss account as well as balance-sheet as on 31.03.2008 of proprietorship business concern M/s TTD Industries, the very documents as on 31.03.2009 for the said concern, general ledger account from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 and audited accounts as on 31.03.2010 stand perused. As come on record that assessee had shown cash amount in his bank to the tune of ₹2,02,10,038/- as against investment of ₹18,90,654/- only meaning thereby that the assessee’s non-interest bearing fund exceed non-business investments. The said investments have been made/accepted in assessment year 2008-09 as against in the impugned assessment year. All these clinching aspects have gone unrebutted during the course of hearing. We quote hon'ble Bombay high court’s landmark decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) to conclude that necessary presumption in such case is that of investment from non-interest bearing funds only. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved:Challenge to correctness of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata's order disallowing interest claim under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of interest claim under section 36(1)(iii) of the ActThe assessee challenged the disallowance of interest claim amounting to &8377;12,16,614/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The CIT(A) disallowed the interest on the grounds that the unsecured loan was not used for business purposes but for various investments. The appellant argued that the investments were made with a motive to earn profit. However, the AO found the explanation unsatisfactory and made the disallowance. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted balance sheets and explanations regarding the investments. The appellant failed to provide a cash flow statement to prove that the investments were made from surplus funds. The balance sheet revealed that the appellant had significant cash in the bank and investments, exceeding the surplus fund shown as capital. The appellant's claim that the investments were not made from borrowed funds was not substantiated. The appellant's subsequent classification of the profits from the investments as long-term capital gains further weakened the claim for business expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, considering the lack of evidence to support the claim that the investments were made from surplus funds and the subsequent treatment of profits as capital gains.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), which presumes investments from non-interest bearing funds in such cases. The Tribunal found that the appellant's non-interest bearing funds exceeded non-business investments, supporting the disallowance of the interest claim.