2025 (7) TMI 669 - AT - Income Tax

Section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance reversed as assessee had sufficient interest-free funds exceeding advances per Reliance Industries precedent

Income Tax Officer, Delhi. Versus Mahak Industries Private Limited And (Vice-Versa)

ITAT Delhi upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of addition for unexplained sundry creditors, finding CIT(A) properly admitted additional evidence including agency ... Unexplained and non-verified sundry creditors - DR submits that the assessee has failed to verify the sundry creditors before the AO despite of repeated opportunities given - CIT(A) deleted addition admitting additional evidences - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the order of CIT(A), we find that CIT(A) admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee after due application of mind and after considering the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer. CIT(A) has discussed the issue at length with respect to the evidences filed including the agency agreement between the assessee and M/s Evergreen Steel & Metal Co. according to which it was agreed between the parties that in the event M/s S. S. Trading Co. failed to make the payments against the sales made to it, the assessee would be entitles to recover the same from M/s Evergreen Steel & Metal Co. In terms of this agreement only, outstanding balance was adjusted against the outstanding of M/s S.S. Trading Co. from the account of M/s M/s Evergreen Steel & Metal Co. AO has not doubted the sales made against which balance was outstanding, therefore, no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on account of sundry creditor which order is hereby upheld. Both the grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. Jurisdiction of the AO in limited scrutiny assessment - After considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that one of the reasons of the limited scrutiny was “larger increase in sundry credit with respect turn over as compared to preceding year”, thus, the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to verify the genuineness of the sundry creditors. However, it is seen that an addition was made on account of disallowance of interest u/s 14A. Since this additions u/s 14A has already been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and not challenged by the Revenue before us, thus, the issue had attained finality. Disallowance of interest - We find that this issue is also covered in the limited scrutiny reason where one of the reason is “low income in comparison to high loans advances which investment in share” thus, we find no merit in ground No. 1 taken in cross objection by the assessee. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) out of interest expenses to the file of Ld. AO for making disallowance in terms of formula given in the appellate order - After hearing both the parties, we find that the claim of the assessee was that it had sufficient interest free funds in the shape of capital which were utilized for making advances. However, Ld. CIT(A) by observing that assessee has failed to link the advance with the borrowed funds, therefore, CIT(A) has directed the AO to re-compute the amount of disallowance of interest on the basis of formula given at page 47 of the order. Such observations of CIT(A) are contrary to the judgments of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has held that where the assessee has sufficient interest free funds, it could be presumed that investments/advances was made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. This view is also expressed in the case of HDFC Bank Limited [2016 (3) TMI 755 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In the instant case, assessee has successfully demonstrated that it had interest free funds of Rs. 3.15 Cr. and the interest free advances made were of Rs. 2.23 crores, thus, no disallowance could be made. Ground of assessee is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in the appeal and cross objections are:(a) Whether the deletion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) of the addition of Rs. 2,07,10,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained and unverified sundry creditors was justified without confirming the transactions with adequate supporting evidence;(b) Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without properly considering the AO's observations during remand proceedings;(c) Whether the AO had jurisdiction to complete the limited scrutiny assessment without complying with mandatory CBDT instructions/guidelines;(d) Whether the invocation of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) for addition of Rs. 2,07,10,000/- on account of sundry creditors was legally sustainable;(e) Whether the CIT(A) erred in remanding the disallowance of interest of Rs. 74,55,681/- under section 36(1)(iii) back to the AO for recomputation;(f) Whether the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was justified in light of the assessee's claim of sufficient interest-free funds utilized for advances;2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) and (b): Deletion of Addition of Rs. 2,07,10,000/- on Account of Sundry CreditorsRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 of the IT Act empowers the AO to treat any sum credited in the books of an assessee as income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such sum, particularly in the case of unexplained cash credits or sundry creditors. The AO is required to verify the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO made the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to verify sundry creditors despite repeated opportunities. The AO doubted the genuineness of balances related to M/s K.D. Sales Corporation and M/s Evergreen Steel & Metal Co., citing lack of confirmations, absence of PAN, rubber stamps, and non-documentation of agreements on stamp paper.The CIT(A), however, admitted additional evidences filed by the assessee during remand proceedings, including purchase bills, transport bills, bank statements, agency agreements, and ledger accounts. The CIT(A) found that the AO's objections were based on technical deficiencies such as absence of stamp and PAN on confirmations, which could have been resolved by verification or specific requests for PAN. The agency agreement clearly defined the parties and their obligations, and the AO did not verify the guarantor entity or make further inquiries.Key evidence and findings: The assessee produced purchase bills and payment evidence for transactions with M/s K.D. Sales Corporation, showing purchases during the year and an opening balance. The agency agreement with M/s Evergreen Steel & Metal Co. established a contractual arrangement to adjust outstanding balances against payments due from a third party, M/s S.S. Trading Co. Ledger accounts and confirmations were also filed.Application of law to facts: The CIT(A) applied the principle that the AO must verify the identity and genuineness of creditors and cannot rely solely on technical objections. Since the AO failed to undertake verification or issue notices to the guarantor, the objections were unsubstantiated. The transactions were supported by documentary evidence and the AO did not doubt the underlying sales transactions.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the confirmations lacked PAN and rubber stamps, and agreements were not on stamp paper, rendering them invalid. The assessee argued that signatures and letterheads sufficiently identified parties, and the AO could have verified PAN or issued notices. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's position and rejected the Revenue's technical objections.Conclusions: The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,07,10,000/- was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.Issue (c): Jurisdiction of AO in Limited Scrutiny AssessmentRelevant legal framework: CBDT guidelines prescribe procedures for limited scrutiny assessments, including reasons for selection and scope of inquiry.Court's reasoning: One of the reasons for limited scrutiny was 'larger increase in sundry credit with respect to turnover as compared to preceding year,' which justified the AO's jurisdiction to verify the genuineness of sundry creditors. The AO acted within jurisdiction.Conclusion: The AO had jurisdiction to complete the assessment under limited scrutiny; the ground challenging jurisdiction was dismissed.Issue (d): Invocation of Section 68 on Sundry CreditorsLegal framework: Section 68 applies to unexplained cash credits, including unexplained sundry creditors.Analysis: The AO invoked section 68 to add unexplained sundry creditors. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the nature and source of these creditors with documentary evidence and agreements, and the AO failed to verify or disprove the genuineness.Conclusion: Invocation of section 68 was not justified; additions were rightly deleted.Issue (e) and (f): Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii)Legal framework and precedents: Section 36(1)(iii) allows disallowance of interest expenses on borrowed funds to the extent they are utilized for acquiring income which does not yield taxable income. The Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 held that where the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, it can be presumed that investments/advances were made out of such interest-free funds, thus no disallowance is warranted. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Limited v. DCIT (2016) 363 ITR 66 (Bom) supported this principle.Court's reasoning: The CIT(A) remanded the issue back to the AO for recomputation of disallowance based on a formula, observing that the assessee failed to link advances with borrowed funds. The assessee claimed to have interest-free funds of Rs. 3.15 crore, and advances of Rs. 2.23 crore, which was not rebutted.The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments to hold that no disallowance was warranted where interest-free funds were sufficient to cover advances.Application of law to facts: Since the assessee demonstrated sufficient interest-free funds, the disallowance of Rs. 74,55,681/- was deleted.Conclusion: The cross objection challenging the remand and disallowance was allowed; the disallowance was deleted.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in admitting the additional evidences is hereby upheld.''The objection taken by the Ld AO based on the so-called technical deficiency could have been resolved if the Ld. AO had issued notice to the guarantor entity for verification of the factual situation... In view of the fact that the Ld. AO did not opt to make verification, the objection of the Ld. AO remains unsubstantiated and therefore no adverse view be taken based on the above objection.''Since the AO has not doubted the sales made against which balance was outstanding, therefore, in view of these facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on account of sundry creditor which order is hereby upheld.''Where the assessee has sufficient interest free funds, it could be presumed that investments/advances was made out of interest free funds available with the assessee.''In the instant case, assessee has successfully demonstrated that it had interest free funds of Rs. 3.15 Cr. and the interest free advances made were of Rs. 2.23 crores, thus, by following the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court, no disallowance could be made.'Final determinations:- The Revenue's appeal challenging deletion of addition on sundry creditors was dismissed.- The AO had jurisdiction under limited scrutiny to verify sundry creditors.- The addition under section 68 on sundry creditors was not sustainable and rightly deleted.- The disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted following demonstration of sufficient interest-free funds.- The cross objections of the assessee were allowed accordingly.