2005 (5) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Interest on loan given to sister concern - Whether there existed any commercial expediency for the assessee to transfer the said amount to one of its sister concern or not This question is primarily a question of fact. The contention that the funds were advanced from self-generated funds of the assessee and that there was a need for that purpose, is again a question of fact. It is a settled principle of law that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and the courts while exercising the appellate jurisdiction under section 260A of the Act would not normally interfere with such findings. - Besides the fact that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in the present case, the other predominant factors, which would require dismissal of this appeal are that, from the records no nexus can be traced between the borrowed funds and the interest-free advances made by the assessee to its sister concern. Secondly, it has been clearly established on record that the assessee itself had taken loans with interest and had advanced funds by diversion or otherwise to its sister concern free of interest - held that additions to the extent of interest are justified

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1996-97.
2. Disallowance of interest charged from a concern to which an interest-free loan was advanced.
3. Commercial expediency in diverting funds to a sister concern.
4. Jurisdiction of the court to interfere with factual findings of the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1996-97. The Tribunal accepted the appeal by the Revenue, setting aside the Commissioner of Income-tax's order. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to establish a direct nexus between interest-bearing loans and interest-free advances to a sister concern. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's decision.

2. The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee diverted interest-bearing funds to a sister concern without charging interest, lacking commercial expediency. The Authorised Representative claimed commercial expediency for the fund diversion, stating it was necessary for business establishment. The Tribunal found no commercial expediency as the premises were not taken by the concern, and the assessee raised funds from the market, increasing unsecured loans.

3. The Tribunal concluded that the deletion of the addition by the Commissioner was not justifiable, as the concern gave an interest-free loan to its sister concern despite raising funds from the market. The Tribunal emphasized that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, and the court should not interfere with factual findings under section 260A of the Income-tax Act.

4. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose. The court found no nexus between borrowed funds and interest-free advances to the sister concern. It was established that the assessee took loans with interest and advanced funds interest-free to the sister concern. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing no interference was required, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.