Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, removes notional interest income under Accounting Standard-9

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the deletion of the addition of notional interest income. It found that the accrual concept of accounting did not justify the inclusion of notional interest, considering the factual circumstances and the provisions of Accounting Standard-9 (AS-9). The Tribunal highlighted the ongoing legal issues and low prospects of recovery, supporting the appellant's decision not to recognize the interest income. The appeal was allowed, and the notional interest charge was removed by the AO/CIT(A) in the order pronounced on 20.08.2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of notional interest income.
2. Applicability of Accounting Standard-9 (AS-9) on Revenue Recognition.
3. Accrual of income under the mercantile system of accounting.
4. Examination of factual matrix by the Assessing Officer (AO).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Addition of Notional Interest Income:
The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 3,84,13,000/- as notional interest income computed at 17.95% on a loan of Rs. 21.40 crores advanced to M/s. Red Fort Akbar Properties Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on the appellant's adherence to the mercantile system of accounting, which mandates income recognition upon accrual. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had recognized interest income for the financial year 2012-13, but subsequent legal and financial complications led to deferral and eventual write-off of the principal amount as bad debt in F.Y. 2018-19.

2. Applicability of Accounting Standard-9 (AS-9) on Revenue Recognition:
The appellant's counsel referred to AS-9, emphasizing that revenue recognition requires reasonable certainty of ultimate collection. AS-9 states that if there is uncertainty regarding the realization of any claim, revenue recognition should be postponed until the uncertainty is resolved. The Tribunal agreed that given the ongoing litigation and remote chances of recovery, the appellant's decision not to account for the interest in the relevant year was justified under AS-9.

3. Accrual of Income under the Mercantile System of Accounting:
The Tribunal examined whether the notional interest should be accrued under the mercantile system of accounting. It cited judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Motor Credit Co. P. Ltd. and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Goyal M.G. Gases (P) Ltd., which held that income must be real and not hypothetical. The Tribunal concluded that when the principal amount's recovery is doubtful, interest cannot be accrued and added to income, even under the mercantile system.

4. Examination of Factual Matrix by the Assessing Officer (AO):
The Tribunal noted that the AO, in his remand report, relied on findings from A.Y. 2014-15 without considering the Tribunal's directive for a fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO failed to appreciate the factual matrix, including the legal stalemate and remote chances of recovery, which justified the non-recognition of notional interest.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the addition of notional interest was not justified under the accrual concept of accounting, given the factual circumstances and the mandate of AS-9. It directed the deletion of the notional interest charge by the AO/CIT(A) and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The order was pronounced on 20.08.2020.

---