2025 (2) TMI 334 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee wins appeal on interest expenditure deduction despite insufficient evidence of liability crystallization

Prasandi Infotech Park P. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle 1, New Delhi.

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal regarding interest expenditure deductibility despite lack of evidence for liability crystallization in the ... Allowability of interest expenditure - to substantiate his claim, the assessee has not furnished any evidence on the basis of which it can be proved that the liability as regards to such interest expenses is being crystallized in the concerned assessment year - allowability of the expenditure is restricted to the assessment year for which the Assessing Officer has the jurisdiction and he rejected the submissions of the assessee that negotiated interest was only crystallized during the year HELD THAT:- Even the assessee may have claimed the above interest loss would have been increased and assessee would have carried forward the loss. From the financial positions and profitability declared in the financial statement, it shows that it has no tax effect. The lower authorities argued that assessee has followed the mercantile system and assessee should have booked the relevant information in the relevant financial year, however there would not be any tax impact even assessee could have claimed the relevant expenditure in the relevant assessment year. In this regard, we rely on the decision of Dinesh Kumar Goel [2010 (10) TMI 287 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that if there is no loss to the Revenue, it cannot make much outcry for nothing. In this case, the above finding applies considering the factual matrix discussed above. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the claim of the assessee even though the assessee has sought for full waiver of interest even though it is not possible. However, the relevant liability was communicated to the assessee by the lender rejecting the proposals mooted by the assessee. Considering the peculiar facts in this case, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee considering the fact that there is no loss to the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue in this case was whether the interest expense of Rs. 33,65,13,449/- claimed by the assessee as an exceptional item in the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 should be allowed as a deduction, given that the interest pertained to prior financial years, specifically FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16. The Tribunal considered whether the liability for the interest crystallized in AY 2017-18 due to the failure of negotiations for a waiver or reduction of interest with the lender, SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd., and whether the interest expense should be treated as a prior period expense or as an allowable deduction in AY 2017-18.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedentsThe relevant legal framework includes the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically sections pertaining to the deduction of expenses, the mercantile system of accounting, and the concept of crystallization of liabilities. The Tribunal also considered precedents where courts have addressed the issue of when a liability is considered to have crystallized, allowing it to be claimed as an expense in a particular year.Court's interpretation and reasoningThe Tribunal noted that the assessee had entered into negotiations with the lender for a waiver or reduction of interest, which was ultimately rejected by the lender on 13.06.2016. The Tribunal interpreted this as the point at which the liability for the interest crystallized, allowing the assessee to claim the interest expense in AY 2017-18. The Tribunal emphasized that the negotiations and the subsequent rejection were significant events impacting the computation of the interest liability.Key evidence and findingsThe key evidence included correspondence between the assessee and the lender, where the assessee repeatedly requested a waiver or reduction of interest due to financial difficulties. The lender's rejection of these requests was documented in a letter dated 13.06.2016. The Tribunal found that this correspondence supported the assessee's claim that the liability crystallized in AY 2017-18.Application of law to factsApplying the law to the facts, the Tribunal concluded that the interest expense should be allowed as a deduction in AY 2017-18, as the liability crystallized in that year when the lender rejected the waiver request. The Tribunal also considered the fact that the lender had already accounted for the interest as income in their returns, and the assessee's financial statements showed no tax effect from claiming the expense in AY 2017-18.Treatment of competing argumentsThe Tribunal addressed the Revenue's argument that the assessee should have claimed the expense in the relevant years (FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16) due to the mercantile system of accounting. However, the Tribunal found that there was no tax impact from the timing of the expense claim, as the assessee had declared losses in those years, which would have been carried forward. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel, which held that if there is no loss to the Revenue, the department should not object.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the interest expense should be allowed in AY 2017-18, as the liability crystallized in that year. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the disallowance of the interest expense by the lower authorities was overturned.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoningThe Tribunal stated: 'Considering the peculiar facts in this case, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee considering the fact that there is no loss to the Revenue.'Core principles establishedThe Tribunal established that the crystallization of a liability for interest expense can occur in the year when negotiations for waiver or reduction are conclusively rejected, allowing the expense to be claimed in that year. Additionally, if there is no tax impact or loss to the Revenue, the timing of the expense claim should not be a point of contention.Final determinations on each issueThe Tribunal determined that the interest expense of Rs. 33,65,13,449/- should be allowed as a deduction in AY 2017-18, as the liability crystallized in that year. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the disallowance by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) was overturned.