2012 (5) TMI 481 - AT - Income Tax

Bad debt - Held that - The amount has been correctly disallowed as bad debt because the conditions prescribed u/s.36 2 that either such amount should have been considered for computing the income or the amount could have been lent in the ordinary course of business, are not fulfilled. Loan to sister concerns without interest - Held that The AO has made his case very clear that a specific amount was borrowed for the purpose of Narsonar Bala project and the loan proceeds were deposited in Kotak Mahindra Bank. Admittedly, the money has been given out of such loan to the sister concern. Therefore, there is a direct nexus between the interest bearing loan and the interest free advances granted to the sister concern. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made a general submission that in Narsonar Bala project funds of more than Rs.10 crores were used but he has not given any source of such funds or any evidence that assessee was having some interest free funds which were used in this project. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs.8,09,835/- claimed as a bad debt.
2. Disallowance of interest of Rs.8,36,332/- related to the Navsonarbala Project.
3. Disallowance of Rs.22,72,956/- out of interest payments.
4. Levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Rs.8,09,835/- claimed as a bad debt:
The assessee claimed Rs.8,09,835/- as a bad debt related to payments made to M/s Hiranandani Associates for the utilization of excess land space in the Gangotri and Yamnotri projects. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim on the grounds that the conditions under section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act were not met, as the amount was neither taken into account while computing the income of the assessee in any previous year nor was it money lent in the ordinary course of business. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this decision, stating that the conditions prescribed under section 36(2) were not fulfilled. The tribunal also rejected the alternative plea to allow the amount as business expenditure under section 37(1) due to lack of evidence supporting the claim of extra space utilization.

2. Disallowance of interest of Rs.8,36,332/- related to the Navsonarbala Project:
The AO noticed that the assessee borrowed Rs.10 crores from M/s Thakur Finvest Pvt. Ltd. for the Navsonarbala Project and deposited it in Kotak Mahindra Bank. Some funds were lent to sister concerns without interest. The AO disallowed a proportionate interest amount of Rs.8,36,332/-. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the assessee had transferred funds to sister concerns without interest, which indicated non-utilization of borrowed funds for business purposes. The tribunal confirmed this decision, finding no evidence that the borrowed funds were used for the project and affirming the direct nexus between the interest-bearing loan and interest-free advances.

3. Disallowance of Rs.22,72,956/- out of interest payments:
The AO further disallowed Rs.22,72,956/- out of the total interest payments of Rs.88,90,467/- on the grounds that interest-free advances were made from interest-bearing borrowings. The CIT(A) and the tribunal upheld this disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to prove the nexus between borrowed funds and their utilization for business purposes. The tribunal emphasized that the assessee did not provide evidence of having sufficient interest-free funds to cover the interest-free advances. The reliance on the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Powers Ltd. was dismissed as the AO had already accounted for interest-free loans and partners' capital in his calculations.

4. Levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act:
The CIT(A) and the tribunal held that the levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D is consequential and should be calculated in accordance with the provisions of law.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities on all grounds, confirming the disallowances and the consequential levy of interest.