9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 467 - HC - Income TaxClaim of Interest - The only issue is as to whether this interest had accrued in earlier years or in the assessment year in question, viz., 2000-01, in which year the assessee had claimed the deduction thereof. According to the Assessing Officer (AO), such as deduction was not permissible in this year as the interest had accrued in the earlier years, which should have been claimed in those years only. - Held that - When there is dispute regarding interest liability for a particular A/Y and the dispute is settled in some other year, claim can made when dispute is finally settled. - the exact liability of the assessee to pay the interest to RCL got settled finally only when compromise decree was passed at High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Since this compromise decree was passed on 08.02.2001, it was, but natural for the assessee to claim the deductions of this liability in the year in question. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Accrual of interest liability. 2. Deduction of interest in the relevant assessment year. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Accrual of Interest Liability: The core issue pertains to the timing of the accrual of interest liability on borrowed funds by the respondent-assessee. The dispute centers on whether the interest liability accrued in earlier years or in the assessment year 2000-01, in which the assessee claimed the deduction. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the interest had accrued in earlier years and should have been claimed then. However, the CIT (A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) found that the liability crystallized in the assessment year 2000-01 when a consent decree was passed by the Bombay High Court. The genesis of the dispute dates back to a loan agreement dated 17.08.1995 between the assessee and M/s. Reliance Capital Limited (RCL), which stipulated an interest rate of 24% per annum. Due to financial difficulties, the assessee defaulted, leading to disputes and a subsequent lawsuit filed by RCL. The dispute was eventually settled via a consent decree on 08.02.2001, where the assessee agreed to pay the principal amount along with interest. The AO contended that there was no dispute until 14.10.1997, and thus, the interest liability had accrued before this date. Conversely, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal held that the dispute regarding the payment of interest and principal existed since 19.02.1996, and the liability only crystallized with the consent decree in the assessment year 2000-01. 2. Deduction of Interest in the Relevant Assessment Year: The second issue is whether the assessee could claim the deduction of the interest liability in the assessment year 2000-01. The AO disallowed the deduction, asserting that the liability should have been claimed in the years it accrued. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal, however, allowed the deduction, reasoning that the liability was in dispute and only became certain with the consent decree in 2001. The AO's view was that the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should claim expenses in the year they accrue. He cited several judgments, including Indian Timber Corpn. v. CIT and CIT v. SKG Sugar Ltd., to support this position. However, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal found that the dispute over the liability persisted until the consent decree, making it appropriate to claim the deduction in the assessment year 2000-01. The Tribunal endorsed the CIT (A)'s view, noting that the assessee had consistently disputed the liability, as evidenced by the pleadings in the suit and the affidavit filed in the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal concluded that the liability only crystallized with the consent decree, thus supporting the assessee's claim for deduction in the relevant assessment year. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing that the exact liability for interest only settled with the consent decree in 2001. Therefore, the assessee was correct in claiming the deduction in the assessment year 2000-01. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that no question of law arose and the AO's view was incorrect.
|
