9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1122 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of proportionate interest under section 36(1)(iii) on account of non-business purposes - Held that - Since in the instant case the own capital and interest free funds are more than the interest free advances given, therefore, following the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) we are of the considered opinion that no disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) is called for. - Decided in favour of assessee Enhancement of income - Held that - CIT(A) has no power to enhance the income of the assessee by introducing a new source of income which had not been considered by the AO. Addition, if any, on that account can be made by taking recourse into provisions of section 147/148 and section 263. We accordingly hold that both factually as well as legally the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the income of the assessee by ₹ 25 lakhs. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Enhancement of income by Rs. 25 lakhs by the CIT(A). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii): The assessee, a firm engaged in building construction and land development, filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 81,560. During the assessment, the AO noted that the assessee paid interest of Rs. 9,26,418 on loans from cooperative societies without deducting tax under section 194A, leading to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Additionally, the AO noted that the assessee forwarded loans and advances for both business and non-business purposes. The AO applied section 14A read with Rule 8D, making an addition of Rs. 3,04,000 to the total income. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the addition under section 14A read with Rule 8D was incorrect but disallowed interest of Rs. 5,55,005 under section 36(1)(iii), as the assessee failed to prove the borrowed funds were used solely for business purposes. The CIT(A) relied on the decision in Ravindra Singh Arora Vs. CIT. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (partners' capital and interest-free loans from relatives) to cover the interest-free advances given. Citing the Bombay High Court decision in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., the Tribunal held that if interest-free funds are available, it is presumed that investments are made from such funds. Consequently, the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted. 2. Enhancement of Income by Rs. 25 Lakhs by the CIT(A): During a survey under section 133A, entries related to unrecorded expenses were found, leading to a statement from a partner admitting Rs. 25 lakhs as additional income. The CIT(A) issued an enhancement notice and added Rs. 25 lakhs to the income, as the figures were not recorded in the regular books of account. The assessee argued that the enhancement was invalid as it introduced a new source of income not considered by the AO. The Tribunal agreed, citing Supreme Court decisions (CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry and CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria) and Delhi High Court decisions (CIT Vs. Sardarilal and Company and CIT Vs. Union Tyres), which restrict the appellate authority's power to enhance income to matters considered by the AO. The Tribunal also found that the figures in the impounded document were already recorded in the regular books of account, making the addition factually incorrect. Consequently, the enhancement of Rs. 25 lakhs by the CIT(A) was set aside. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, deleting both the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) and the enhancement of income by Rs. 25 lakhs. The decision emphasized the proper application of legal principles regarding the use of interest-free funds and the limitations on the appellate authority's power to enhance income.
|
