1996 (12) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction towards interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of whether borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes.

Summary:

Disallowance of Deduction Towards Interest u/s 36(1)(iii):
The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that a part of the borrowing had been diverted by the assessee to its non-business purposes, thereby disallowing the interest deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a partnership concern running a cinema and a restaurant, claimed an interest deduction of Rs. 26,108, out of which Rs. 23,166 was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The Officer observed that the partners' accounts showed debit balances and concluded that the assessee should have returned loans to creditors instead of allowing partners to draw excess money.

Determination of Whether Borrowed Funds Were Diverted for Non-Business Purposes:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner partially allowed the appeal, noting that the partners had overdrawn in earlier years but not in the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74. He concluded that loans amounting to Rs. 43,017 were diverted for non-business purposes and allowed a deduction for the balance interest amount of Rs. 18,166. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, partly allowed the Department's appeal, agreeing with the Income-tax Officer that a major part of the borrowing had been diverted for non-business purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that profits must be calculated after accounting for depreciation and that partners could not withdraw amounts exceeding the net profits after depreciation.

Legal Analysis and Conclusion:
The High Court analyzed the conditions for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii), which include: (i) money must have been borrowed by the assessee, (ii) it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business, and (iii) the assessee must have paid interest on the said amount and claimed it as a deduction. The Court referred to precedents including Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT and CIT v. Bombay Samachar Limited, which supported the view that once these conditions are satisfied, the deduction must be allowed. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's inference that borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes due to depreciation adjustments was incorrect in law. Consequently, the High Court answered the reference in favor of the assessee, holding that the Tribunal was not legally correct in disallowing the interest deduction and that the assessee was entitled to claim the interest on those borrowings u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.