Prepaid finance charges deduction allowed when actual payment made despite different accounting treatment

ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance of prepaid finance charges. The tribunal held that once actual payment is made towards expenditure, different treatment in books of accounts cannot deprive the assessee from claiming deduction in the year of payment. Relying on SC precedents in Taparia Tools Ltd and Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co Ltd, the tribunal ruled that book entries are irrelevant for determining deductibility. Since finance charges were actually incurred and paid during the assessment year, deduction should be allowed despite being treated as deferred revenue expenditure in books. The tribunal set aside CIT(A)'s findings and directed AO to delete the additions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to Covid-19 lockdown.
2. Disallowance of prepaid finance charges.
3. Claim of depreciation on temporary assets.
4. Allowability of education cess as an expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to the Covid-19 lockdown. The appellant sought condonation of a 176-day delay citing the lockdown's impact. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's order extending limitations due to Covid-19 was considered, leading to the condonation of the delay by the Appellate Tribunal.

2. The main issue was the disallowance of prepaid finance charges by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant contended that the charges were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal noted that the expenditure was classified as prepaid in the books but claimed as a deduction in the year of payment. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the expenditure should be allowed as a deduction in the year of payment, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision.

3. The claim of depreciation on temporary assets was raised but later withdrawn by the appellant during the hearing. Consequently, the ground challenging the disallowance of depreciation on temporary assets was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

4. The issue of the deductibility of education cess paid as an expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act was also raised. The appellant decided not to press this ground during the hearing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on this issue as withdrawn. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal based on the above analysis, setting aside the disallowance of prepaid finance charges and dismissing the other withdrawn grounds.

---