2021 (3) TMI 1101 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants appeal on interest expenses, remands for reassessment

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the Commissioner's order disallowing interest expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of ... Disallowance of interest expenses u/s.36(1)(iii) - interest bearing funds were utilized for non-business purposes, i.e. investment in mutual funds - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held in the context of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act that 'if there is interest-free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investment and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest-free funds available'. The above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is to be examined in the instant case. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO to examine the applicability of the ratio laid down in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.(supra). We direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence before the AO. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:1. Disallowance of interest expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act for non-business purposes.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involved the disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs. 3,52,251 under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act for non-business purposes. The case concerned the assessment year 2016-17 and arose from an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai. Despite the case being scheduled for hearings on two occasions, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, leading the Tribunal to proceed based on available records and the Departmental Representative's submissions.The grounds of appeal by the assessee contested the disallowance of interest expenses by the Assessing Officer, who found that borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes, specifically investment in mutual funds. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this disallowance, emphasizing the requirement for borrowed funds to be used for business purposes to claim deductions under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Citing relevant case law, the Commissioner concluded that the appellant failed to justify the investment made for non-business purposes, leading to the disallowance.In response, the Departmental Representative supported the Commissioner's order. However, the Tribunal, considering the appellant's contention that the investments were made from their own funds and interest-free advances, referred to a judgment by the Bombay High Court. The High Court's ruling suggested that if interest-free funds were adequate to cover investments while a loan was raised, it could be presumed that investments were from interest-free funds. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further examination based on the High Court's precedent, instructing the assessee to provide relevant documents.Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal's decision to reevaluate the applicability of the precedent laid down by the Bombay High Court in determining the treatment of interest expenses for non-business purposes under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.