2011 (1) TMI 903 - AT - Income Tax

Commercial Expidency - Non-charging of interest on advances by the sister concern, particularly in the situation where both the concerns having benefits of such mutual accommodation, could indeed be justified on the ground of commercial expediency in a particular fact situation. - claim of deduction of interest allowed. Ad hoc disallowance in the absence of fully supporting vouchers and also considering the personal element - transport, octroi and freight charges, telephone expenses and miscellaneous expenses - held that - no disallowance is called for on account of personal use of these facilities as it is a case of company as held in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT (2001 -TMI - 13175 - GUJARAT High Court) wherein, it was held that no disallowance on account of personal use of the vehicles/telephone by the directors/officials could be made in the hands of a company. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of interest, additions in respect of transport, octroi, and freight charges, telephone expenses, and miscellaneous expenses, levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest
The appeal questioned the correctness of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order regarding the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 11,22,551. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest paid on unsecured loans as the assessee had advanced interest-free funds to a sister concern. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of commercial expediency in the transaction. However, the Tribunal noted that the non-charging of interest was justified by commercial expediency due to mutual accommodations between the parties. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of commercial expediency was valid, leading to the direction to delete the disallowance. The assessee received relief, and the ground was allowed.

Issue 2: Additions in Expenses
The assessee contested the additions in expenses for transport, octroi, freight charges, telephone expenses, and miscellaneous expenses. The Assessing Officer made ad hoc disallowances due to insufficient vouchers and personal elements in certain expenses. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld these disallowances. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that no disallowance should be made for personal use of facilities in a company setup. Relying on a previous decision, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the ad hoc disallowances, granting relief to the assessee. Consequently, ground No. 2 was allowed.

Issue 3: Levy of Interest
Ground No. 3 challenged the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C, with the assessee seeking consequential relief. The Tribunal noted that the Departmental representative did not dispute this claim. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the consequential relief, resulting in the appeal being allowed in this regard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the assessee by allowing the appeal on all three issues raised. The disallowance of interest was overturned based on commercial expediency, ad hoc disallowances in expenses were deleted, and consequential relief regarding the levy of interest was granted.