2025 (8) TMI 1425 - AT - Income Tax

Revision under s.263 upholds disallowance of partner's claimed interest and remuneration interest as prejudicial to revenue

Munir Mahendrakumar Shah Versus PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

Munir Mahendrakumar Shah Versus PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Principal Commissioner's invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was valid where the Assessing Officer had allowed set-off of interest expense against income and remuneration received as a partner from partnership firms. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer erred and acted prejudicially to the revenue by permitting deduction of interest expenses against (a) interest income received from partnership firms and (b) remuneration (salary) received as a partner, without making requisite enquiry and verification. 3. Whether interest paid can be claimed as a deduction against remuneration (remuneration of a working partner) received from a partnership firm and, if not, whether allowance of such claimed deduction constitutes an erroneous order justifying exercise of Section 263. 4. Applicability of precedents relied upon by the parties (including the principle in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.) and whether the decisions cited by the assessee support setting aside the revisional step taken by the Principal Commissioner. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of invoking Section 263 revisional jurisdiction Legal framework: Section 263 permits revision where an assessment order is found to be 'erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.' Explanation-2 (referred to by parties) and judicial gloss require that the AO's order must be shown to involve an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law or lack of inquiry where inquiry was necessary. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court principle that an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law satisfies the test for an order being erroneous and prejudicial (Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.). Decisions cited by the assessee from the jurisdictional High Court and a co-ordinate bench were considered distinguishable on facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the record and found that the AO had not adequately examined the claim for deduction of interest which had been adjusted against partnership interest and partner's remuneration. The notice and the assessee's replies were placed on record; however, the assessee's submissions (capital account copies and a working) did not explain the legal basis or factual nexus required to treat interest expense as wholly and exclusively laid out for earning of the partnership interest or for earning of remuneration. The AO accepted the claim without making further verification that the borrowed funds (on which interest was paid) were applied to produce the contested receipts. This absence of requisite enquiry and verification amounted to an incorrect application of law/fact and therefore rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an AO allows a deduction without making necessary verification to establish nexus between borrowing and the income head against which the deduction is claimed, such omission can make the order erroneous and prejudicial for purposes of Section 263. Obiter - Application of Explanation-2 was noted but not exhaustively analyzed; reliance on the distinct facts of other decisions was treated as not applicable. Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was validly invoked because the AO's order, in respect of the unexamined adjustments of interest against partnership receipts and remuneration, was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Issue 2 - Adequacy of AO's enquiry into set-off of interest against partnership income and remuneration Legal framework: Deduction of interest is allowable only if the interest was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the relevant income. The AO must examine/document the factual nexus (e.g., application of borrowed funds to earning the specific income) before allowing set-offs against specific receipts. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied established authorities holding that lack of necessary inquiry or incorrect assumption of facts justifies revisional action; the Malabar principle was applied to conclude that omission to make material enquiries fulfills the 'erroneous and prejudicial' threshold. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal parsed the assessment record, notice dated 10.03.2021 and the assessee's reply. The AO's single query and the copy of capital accounts/working filed by the assessee did not substantively establish that loans on which interest was paid were laid out wholly and exclusively for earning of the partnership interest or remuneration. No material establishing transfer/application of borrowings to the partnership activities or nexus to remuneration was placed on record; the AO did not pursue further verification. Consequently, acceptance of the claim amounted to an acceptance without due inquiry and therefore an incorrect assumption of fact and law. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Acceptance of interest deduction without documentary or factual verification of nexus amounts to failure of inquiry and renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial for Section 263 purposes. Obiter - The scope/height of enquiry to be carried out in every case was not exhaustively delineated. Conclusion: The AO's enquiry was inadequate in relation to the interest claimed against partnership receipts and remuneration; this deficiency justified interference under Section 263 directing verification of the set-off claims. Issue 3 - Allowability of interest deduction against remuneration of a partner and against interest income from partnership firms Legal framework: Interest deduction requires that the expenditure be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the income-earning activity. Remuneration received as a partner (salary/remuneration from a firm) is a receipt distinct from interest income; to deduct interest against remuneration, assessee must show that borrowing funded activities the earning of such remuneration (i.e., the expenditure was laid out for earning remuneration). Precedent treatment: Authorities were invoked to emphasize the general rule that interest not incurred for earning a specific head of income cannot be set off against that head; Malabar (Supreme Court) was relied upon to treat incorrect factual assumptions as rendering orders erroneous. The assessee's cited decisions were found factually distinguishable. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that adjustment of interest expense of Rs. 68,95,778/- included (a) Rs. 57,05,778/- set off against interest income from three firms and (b) Rs. 11,90,000/- set off against remuneration from a partnership firm. While the AO disallowed part of the interest claimed under 'other sources' after detailed scrutiny, the parallel claim under 'business income' (set-offs against partnership receipts/remuneration) had not been subjected to comparable verification. The Tribunal concluded that adjustment of interest against partner's remuneration is 'apparently not allowable' unless nexus is proved, and such allowance without proof constitutes an incorrect application of law/fact. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Interest cannot be allowed as a deduction against remuneration of a partner unless the assessee establishes that the borrowing and interest were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning that remuneration; absent such proof, allowance is impermissible and its allowance without enquiry is prejudicial. Obiter - The Tribunal did not lay down an exhaustive checklist of documents to prove nexus; it confined itself to the facts showing absence of such proof in the record. Conclusion: Deduction of interest against partner's remuneration (and against interest receipts) was not automatically permissible; granting such deduction without proof of the requisite nexus was erroneous and prejudicial and required reassessment/verification. Issue 4 - Application of precedents relied upon by parties Legal framework: Revisional power jurisprudence requires factual and legal correctness; precedents are to be applied only on comparable facts. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal accepted Malabar as authority that incorrect factual assumption or incorrect application of law justifies Section 263 action. Decisions cited by the assessee (including a jurisdictional High Court decision and a co-ordinate Bench order) were examined and distinguished on factual matrix: those authorities did not confront the specific omission to verify nexus between borrowings and partner's remuneration/interest income that is present here. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that even if some enquiry had been initiated by the AO, the material on record did not show that the AO addressed the particular legal question whether the interest expense was laid out wholly and exclusively for earning the partnership interest or partner's remuneration; hence the precedents invoked by the assessee were not applicable to absolve the AO or to bar revisional action. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Precedential protection for an AO's order depends on factually sufficient enquiry and reasoned conclusion; where such enquiry is missing and allowance is made on incorrect assumption, revisional jurisdiction is available. Obiter - The Tribunal's distinctions of other authorities are limited to the facts of the present record. Conclusion: The precedents relied upon by the assessee do not preclude exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 in the present factual matrix; Malabar supports revision where AO made an incorrect assumption of facts or law by accepting the challenged set-offs without adequate enquiry. Overall disposition The Tribunal concluded that the Principal Commissioner rightly invoked Section 263 because the AO's allowance of interest against partnership interest and partner's remuneration was made without necessary verification of nexus and therefore constituted an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The revisional order was sustained and the assessee's appeal dismissed. The Tribunal directed further verification by the Assessing Officer as contemplated in the revisional direction.