ITAT sets aside FD interest taxation orders pending High Court decision on ownership dispute

ITAT Chennai set aside lower authorities' orders regarding interest income taxation from a disputed FD. The assessee claimed non-liability due to court-ordered ownership transfer, while revenue argued for taxation. ITAT held that since FD ownership remains undecided by HC, taxation cannot be determined presently. Matter remanded to AO for fresh adjudication after HC decides ownership. Assessee provided affidavit accepting tax liability if ownership reverts. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) also set aside pending quantum determination. Revenue's appeal allowed for statistical purposes only.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of interest income addition for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15.
3. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Interest Income Addition for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15:

The Revenue challenged the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding interest income for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The AO had added interest income of Rs. 2,46,16,767/- and Rs. 2,50,55,139/- respectively, as income from other sources, since the assessee had not filed a Return of Income (ROI) for the years under consideration. The CIT(A) deleted these additions based on the assessee's contention that the interest income never crystallized in its hands due to an ongoing legal dispute over the ownership of the funds in a Fixed Deposit (FD) with the State Bank of India, Erode Branch. The funds were subject to an attachment order by the Delhi High Court, and the interest accrued was transferred to Canara Bank as per the court's direction. The Tribunal acknowledged that the ownership of the FD was still sub judice and directed the AO to reassess the taxation of the interest income only after the High Court's final decision on the ownership. Hence, the appeals for these years were allowed for statistical purposes.

2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15:

The Revenue also appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to quash penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The penalties were related to the alleged concealment of income due to the non-disclosure of interest income. However, since the quantum additions were set aside pending the High Court's decision on the ownership of the FD, the Tribunal held that there could be no tax on concealed income for the levy of penalty. The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the imposition of penalties based on the outcome of the ownership issue. Consequently, these appeals were also allowed for statistical purposes.

3. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:

The Revenue filed a request for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, citing reasons such as pre-occupation with time-barring work and unforeseen technical glitches. The assessee did not oppose this request. The Tribunal found the justification satisfactory and condoned the delay, allowing the appeals to proceed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to reassess the interest income and related penalties once the High Court decides on the ownership of the FD. This decision underscores the principle that tax liability on income should be determined based on clear ownership and control over the income-generating asset.

---