2016 (1) TMI 1125 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of Finance & Interest Charges - disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - Held that - AO has failed to follow the direct decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited, (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) wherein it is held that where the assessee possessed sufficient interest free funds of its own which were generated in the course of the relevant financial year, part from substantial shareholders funds, presumption sands established that the investment in sister concerns were made by the assessee out of interest-free funds and therefore no part of interest on borrowings can be disallowed on the basis that the investments were made out of interest bearing funds. The addition made by the Id. AO is not sustainable on the facts and in law and therefore the addition made be deleted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Finance & Interest Charges
2. Disallowance of certain expenses

Disallowance of Finance & Interest Charges:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 39,91,541 on account of disallowance of 'Finance & Interest Charges' for the assessment year 2010-11. The Revenue contended that the interest-free funds advanced as a deposit to a sister concern were supplemented by interest-bearing funds, leading to the deletion being erroneous. The Revenue argued that the company's actions of advancing the deposit without business exigency warranted upholding the addition. Additionally, the absence of a break-up of interest-free and interest-bearing funds by the assessee was highlighted. The AO relied on a previous case to support the disallowance, which was deleted by the CIT(A) based on the availability of interest-free funds to extend the advance to the sister concern. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the sufficiency of interest-free funds available to the assessee.

Disallowance of certain expenses:
The second issue pertained to the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 on account of disallowance of certain expenses. The AO disallowed this amount due to insufficient verification and lack of corroborative evidence. The onus was on the assessee to establish the business necessity of the expenses. The CIT(A) overturned this disallowance, deeming it ad hoc and unjustified without specific identification of questionable expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the absence of defects in vouchers and the duly audited nature of the company's accounts. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was also dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The judgment emphasized the availability of interest-free funds to support the advance made to the sister concern and the lack of specific defects in the expenses disallowed. The order was pronounced on 5th January 2016.