2025 (5) TMI 2114 - AT - Income Tax

Taxpayer wins interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) as revenue fails to prove non-business use of funds

The DCIT, Circle-1 (1), Chandigarh. Versus M/s Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh.

ITAT Chandigarh upheld CIT(A)'s order allowing interest expenditure deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). AO failed to demonstrate that interest-bearing ... Addition u/s 36(1)(iii) - disallowance out of interest expenditure - HELD THAT:- An interest expenditure to a businessman/professional will not be allowed as a deduction if it is demonstrated that interest bearing funds were not used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. We find that CIT(A) has recorded a specific finding that AO has nowhere pointed out which amount was not incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business. We have perused the assessment order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A). We find that instead of pointing out user of interest bearing funds for the purpose of non business, the AO has only made reference with reference to the increase in inventory i.e. unsold cars/spares with the assessee. Similarly, he made reference to the increase of balance in the bank. We fail to understand that how these two components could goad any adjudicating authority to assume that interest bearing funds have not been used for the purpose of the business. The increase in the inventory in itself shows that higher funds were used for procuring those cars from manufacturers for sale. Thus, ld. AO miserably failed to demonstrate as to how interest expenditure is not allowable u/s 36(1) (iii). Mismatch between the TDS details submitted in Form No. 26AS vis-à-vis the entries in the books of account - CIT(A) has observed that assessee has duly reconciled the alleged discrepancy construed by the AO - CIT(A) was satisfied that reconciliation has been made by the assessee. Secondly, with abundant caution CIT(A) has relegated this issue to the file of AO for verification. Thus, while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A), AO could examine this aspect. We fail to understand as to how the Revenue aggrieved with this issue. Hence this ground is rejected. Addition of sundry creditors increased - We find that as far as Ford India Ltd. is concerned, it is the manufacturer of Ford cars, for whom assessee is working as Authorized Dealer. If few cars are supplied to the assessee on credit basis, then its credit balance will increase in the books of the assessee. Similarly, other one is a card being used for renewing the insurance of the car as well as for making insurance of new cars. How this increase in the credit could be construed as non-genuine by the AO is beyond our comprehension. Therefore, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. Validity CIT(A)’s order passed u/s 250 - HELD THAT:- This type of ground gives us a surprise. Firstly, a fatuous attempt is being made by the ACIT or the AO while making the above three disallowances.Without going into the details of the complete record, this type of ground has been raised by the Revenue. The ld. CIT(A) has called for the reports of the AO while dealing with each issue exhaustively. Before us, nothing has been submitted by the Revenue demonstrating the fact which document was not with the AO. No affidavit of the AO has been fi led. Therefore, to our mind, this is a misconceived ground which deserves to be rejected. The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal pertain primarily to the validity of certain additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the income tax assessment for the assessment year 2016-17. Specifically, the issues include: (1) Whether the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act was justified; (2) Whether the addition on account of mismatch between TDS details in Form 26AS and books of account was sustainable; (3) Whether the addition on account of increase in sundry creditors was warranted; and (4) Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s order under Section 250 was perverse due to alleged non-supply of documents to the AO. Other general grounds raised by the Revenue were not considered as they did not require specific findings.Regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii), the relevant legal framework mandates that interest expense is deductible only if the interest-bearing funds are used wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The AO had disallowed Rs. 45,70,407/- on the basis that the assessee's inventory and bank balances had increased, implying funds were not used for business. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO failed to demonstrate which portion of the interest-bearing funds was not applied for business purposes. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), emphasizing that an increase in inventory indicates that funds were indeed used for procuring cars for sale, which is a legitimate business activity. The AO's reliance on mere increases in inventory and bank balances without concrete evidence of non-business use was found to be insufficient. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, concluding that the AO did not meet the burden of proof required to deny the deduction under Section 36(1)(iii).On the issue of mismatch between TDS details in Form 26AS and the books of account, the AO had made an addition of Rs. 1,67,41,985/- alleging discrepancies. The CIT(A) reviewed the reconciliation submitted by the assessee, which explained the differences by pointing out that TDS was deducted by insurance companies on claims and by certain owners on repair charges, which were recorded as labour charges in the books. The CIT(A) noted that the total receipts as per Form 26AS and books of account were reconciled and that the AO had not requested party-wise details during assessment. Importantly, the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the reconciliation and delete the addition if found correct. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had exercised due caution by remanding the matter for verification and found no merit in the Revenue's grievance. Accordingly, the addition was held to be unsustainable.Concerning the addition related to the increase in sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 35,21,320/-, the AO questioned the genuineness of the increase from Rs. 50,28,562/- to Rs. 85,49,882/-. The assessee clarified that the sundry creditors comprised mainly (a) Ford India Ltd., the manufacturer supplying cars on credit, and (b) American Express Card used for insurance payments. The CIT(A) accepted the confirmation of balances from these creditors and found the increase attributable to business necessities. The Tribunal agreed, reasoning that credit from the manufacturer for supplied cars and credit card usage for insurance payments are legitimate business transactions. The AO's suspicion lacked substantiation, and the addition was rightly deleted.Regarding the allegation that the CIT(A)'s order was perverse due to non-supply of documents to the AO, the Tribunal found this ground to be misconceived. The Revenue failed to specify which documents were allegedly withheld or not served upon the AO. No affidavit or evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. The CIT(A) had thoroughly examined the issues and called for remand reports where necessary. The Tribunal expressed surprise at this vague objection and dismissed it as lacking any basis.In sum, the Tribunal's analysis rested heavily on the principle that the AO bears the onus of proving that expenses are not incurred for business purposes to justify disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii). Mere presumptions based on increases in inventory or bank balances without direct evidence are inadequate. Similarly, reconciliation of TDS details with Form 26AS and books of account must be examined on facts, and unexplained mismatches cannot be mechanically added to income. Confirmations from creditors and business context are critical in assessing the genuineness of sundry creditors. Lastly, procedural fairness requires that allegations of non-supply of documents be supported by evidence, failing which such grounds are liable to be rejected.The Tribunal's significant holdings include the following:'An interest expenditure to a businessman/professional will not be allowed as a deduction if it is demonstrated that interest bearing funds were not used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. However, in the present case, the AO has nowhere pointed out which amount was not incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business. The increase in the inventory in itself shows that higher funds were used for procuring those cars from manufacturers for sale.''Instead of pointing out user of interest bearing funds for the purpose of non business, the AO has only made reference with reference to the increase in inventory i.e. unsold cars/spares with the assessee. Similarly, he made reference to the increase of balance in the bank. We fail to understand that how these two components could goad any adjudicating authority to assume that interest bearing funds have not been used for the purpose of the business.''The reconciliation for the TDS mismatch was submitted and explained by the assessee, and the AO has been directed to verify such reconciliation and delete the addition if found correct.''Both the creditors, Ford India Ltd. and American Express Card, have confirmed the credit balance towards the assessee. Their identity is not in doubt. Both the creditors are major business entities in the country. The credits and the increase is because of business necessity.''The ground alleging perversity of the CIT(A)'s order on account of non-supply of documents is misconceived and deserves to be rejected in absence of any evidence.'Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on merits, upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting the impugned additions and confirming the correctness of the assessment as modified by the CIT(A).