2022 (12) TMI 158 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns disallowance of Rs. 9,24,820, stresses consistency in legal principles

The Tribunal vacated the disallowance of Rs. 9,24,820/- sustained by the CIT(A), allowing the cross objection filed by the assessee. The Tribunal ... Addition of the interest claimed treating the loans on which interest paid as used for non business purposes - Sufficiency of interest free funds - HELD THAT:- The assessee has sufficient interest free funds and the revenue has not co-related the interest bearing fund used for non interest bearing purpose. Not only that the in the subsequent year the interest is also not disallowed in the proceedings u/s. 143(3). Thus, the facts of the case on hand and cited by the ld. AR of the assessee similar respectfully following Jurisdictional High Court decision RAM KISHAN VERMA [2016 (1) TMI 223 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] the disallowance of interest sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent is here by vacated and in terms of these observations the Cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of interest expenses claimed by the assessee's proprietary firm on loans treated as used for non-business purposes.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Interest Expenses:The core issue in this case is the disallowance of Rs. 9,24,820/- out of the interest claimed by the assessee's proprietary firm, M/s Ranjana Textile Agency, on the grounds that the loans on which interest was paid were used for non-business purposes.Facts and Background:- The assessee, engaged in trading gray clothes, filed a return for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring an income of Rs. 1,06,400/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order u/s 143(3) determining the income at Rs. 24,11,580/-.- The AO noted an increase in the loan amount by Rs. 47,96,488/- and an increase in interest payment from Rs. 13,67,238/- to Rs. 38,04,671/-. The AO alleged that only half of the interest-bearing loans were used for business purposes, while the rest were used for non-business purposes, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 14,81,068/-.- On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] reduced the disallowance to Rs. 9,24,820/-.Contentions by the Assessee:- The assessee argued that the entire loan was used for business purposes and that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted.- The assessee provided detailed submissions, including charts and tables, to demonstrate the utilization of funds, asserting that no nexus was established between interest-bearing funds and non-business utilization.Investment in Properties:- The assessee highlighted that various lands were acquired long before the assessment year in question and were sourced from the assessee's own capital.- For the land purchased during the year, the interest was capitalized and not claimed as an expense.Advances Against Property:- The assessee provided details of advances given against property purchases, many of which were returned in subsequent years or did not involve interest payments.Interest-Free Funds:- The assessee argued that sufficient interest-free funds were available, including Rs. 60,00,000/- from the sale of a building and Rs. 11,23,057/- in the capital account.- The total interest-free funds available were Rs. 71.23 lakhs, which exceeded the interest-free utilization of Rs. 59.01 lakhs.Legal Precedents and Supporting Case Laws:- The assessee cited several case laws, including CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT, and CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma, to support the argument that where interest-free funds are available, it should be presumed that investments are made from such funds.- The principle that the AO must establish a nexus between interest-bearing loans and interest-free advances was emphasized.Revenue's Argument:- The Revenue argued that the cross objection (CO) was not maintainable as the main appeal of the revenue was dismissed.- It was contended that the AO had made a detailed discussion while making the disallowance and that the CIT(A) had already granted sufficient relief.Tribunal's Decision:- The Tribunal noted that the AO could not definitively prove that interest-bearing loans were used for non-business purposes.- It was observed that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, and the Revenue did not counter the assessee's arguments effectively.- The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma, which held that if interest-free funds are available, no disallowance should be made unless a clear nexus is established.Conclusion:- The Tribunal vacated the disallowance of Rs. 9,24,820/- sustained by the CIT(A), allowing the cross objection filed by the assessee.- The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in applying legal principles and the need for the Revenue to establish a clear nexus between interest-bearing loans and non-business utilization.Order Pronounced:- The cross objection of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open Court on 26/07/2022.