2024 (3) TMI 1403 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue loses appeal on bad debt deduction and Section 14A disallowance due to procedural failures

ACIT, Circle-24 (1), New Delhi Versus Span India Pvt. Ltd.,

The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal in two matters. Regarding bad debt addition of 25% margin money to NSEL, the Tribunal held that losses ... Addition of bad debt of 25% of the margin money to NSEL - assessee is not in the business of banking or money lending and assessee was not a broker of NSEL - HELD THAT:- This issue stands covered by the order of U.K. Paints India Ltd. [2020 (12) TMI 440 - ITAT DELHI] held that the loss will have to be allowable at loss incidental to the business while computing the income u/s 28. Since, it is not an expenditure, the provisions u/s 30 to 37 are not attracted in this case. We hold that loss must be during the course or of incidental to business. It is the nexus with the business which is more relevant to claim the loss (CIT Vs Textool Co. Ltd. [1981 (9) TMI 92 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]). The loss must have a direct and proximate nexus with the business operations and the loss is incidental to it, then such loss is deductible as, without business operations, no profit can be earned. If profit is earned in such an endeavour it is to be taxed and if loss is earned it is to be allowed. Without going into the grammatical issue of debt or bad debts or receivables, since the facts clearly prove that the assessee has incurred loss by the way of his business with M/s Philip Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. and the loss has been in the current year itself, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, such loss incurred in such transaction with regard to NSEL is allowable Addition u/s 14A - procedural requirements and the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer (AO) with the assessee's claims - HELD THAT:- As decided in U.K. Paints India Ltd. [2020 (12) TMI 440 - ITAT DELHI] AO failed to follow the procedural aspects of invocation of Section 14A(2) which is a sine qua non for re-computation of the disallowance. There cannot be any thing like deemed satisfaction or employed dissatisfaction while invoking the provisions of Section 14(2). There is no mention by the Assessing Officer as to how the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. AO who however failed to draw any dissatisfaction as to how the voluntarily disallowance was unreasonable and non-satisfactory with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee. We hereby hold that the disallowance which has been made in contravention with the prescribed mode, methodology and steps for calculation envisaged u/s 14A(2) is liable to be deleted. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issues considered in this judgment were:1. Whether the deletion of the addition of bad debt related to the margin money paid to NSEL was justified, given the circumstances and the nature of the transactions involved.2. Whether the deletion of the addition under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act was appropriate, considering the procedural requirements and the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer (AO) with the assessee's claims.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Addition of Bad Debt Related to Margin Money to NSEL- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case involved the interpretation of Sections 28, 36, and 37 of the Income Tax Act, which pertain to the treatment of business losses and expenditures. The Tribunal referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of TRF Ltd. and Quershi Vs CIT, to determine the applicability of these sections.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the amount lost due to the NSEL scam was a business loss rather than a business expenditure. The loss was deemed incidental to the business operations, thereby qualifying for deduction under Section 28. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the nexus between the loss and the business operations.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had invested and lost the amount in the same financial year, and the transactions were conducted through M/s Philip Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found no evidence of the amount being claimed as a bad debt by the broker, which would have led to a double claim.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that a business loss, if directly connected and incidental to the business operations, is deductible. The loss incurred due to the NSEL scam was deemed to have a direct nexus with the assessee's business activities.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the loss should be treated as a capital loss, but the Tribunal rejected this, noting the absence of a capital asset. The Tribunal also dismissed the applicability of Section 36(2) since the amount had not been offered to tax previously.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the loss was allowable as a business loss under Section 28, and any subsequent recovery should be considered in the computation of total income.Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue revolved around Section 14A and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, which deal with the disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. to support its decision.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the AO had failed to record the necessary satisfaction under Section 14A(2) regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural compliance is essential for invoking Section 14A(2).- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the AO had provided a detailed commentary on Section 14A but did not specifically address the assessee's voluntary disallowance or demonstrate dissatisfaction with it.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that the AO's failure to express dissatisfaction with the assessee's methodology rendered the disallowance invalid. The Tribunal held that the AO must provide objective reasons for rejecting the assessee's claims.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the AO had complied with procedural requirements, but the Tribunal found no evidence of explicit dissatisfaction with the assessee's claims.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance under Section 14A was made in contravention of the prescribed procedural requirements and should be deleted.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- The Tribunal held that the loss incurred due to the NSEL scam was a business loss incidental to the assessee's business operations and was deductible under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act.- The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of procedural compliance under Section 14A(2) for disallowing expenditure related to exempt income, holding that failure to record satisfaction invalidates the disallowance.- The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on both issues, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions.