2013 (7) TMI 768 - AT - Income Tax

Allowability of interest free security and loan - there was no reason to disbelieve that the assessee had given interest free security whom a sum as job charges was received by the assessee - the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the AO on account of notional interest on the security deposit given to the party from whom maximum job work was obtained by the assessee - thus notional interest worked out by the AO on the amount outstanding was not justified the assessee was having sufficient amount of interest free loan - no disallowance was called for out of the interest and accordingly addition made by the AO on account of notional interest was also not justified and CIT(A) without appreciating the facts had confirmed the action of the AO - CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the AO appeal decided in the favour of assessee.

Issues:
Disallowance of interest payment under section 36(1)(iii) for interest-free advances.

Analysis:
1. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.4,66,762/- of interest payment claimed under section 36(1)(iii) by the assessee for interest-free advances given to specific individuals and concerns, citing lack of commercial expediency. The assessee argued that the advances were for business purposes and hence interest paid should be allowed as a deduction.

2. The Assessing Officer scrutinized the loans given and interest paid, questioning the commercial expediency of interest-free advances. The assessee contended that the loans were utilized for business purposes and justified the interest-free aspect based on business relations and expediency. However, the Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the explanations provided and disallowed the claimed interest amount.

3. The learned CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, emphasizing the lack of proof for business expediency in providing interest-free advances. The CIT(A) noted inconsistencies in the audit reports and statements, leading to the conclusion that the advances were not supported by valid business reasons.

4. On appeal, the assessee reiterated that the advances were for business purposes and highlighted instances of interest-free loans received by the assessee. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was unfounded, pointing to specific deposits made and the nature of the transactions with the concerned parties.

5. The Tribunal reviewed the case and found merit in the assessee's arguments. It accepted that the advances were indeed for business purposes, particularly in the case of a significant partner in a related firm. The Tribunal noted the substantial job work received from this partner's firm, justifying the interest-free security deposit given. The Tribunal also observed that the total interest-free loans given were covered by interest-free loans received by the assessee, leading to the conclusion that the disallowance was unjustified.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, overturning the disallowance of Rs.4,66,762/- made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal's decision was based on the established business purpose of the advances and the lack of nexus between interest-bearing funds and interest-free loans given by the assessee.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the progression of the case from the Assessing Officer's disallowance to the Tribunal's final decision, emphasizing the crucial aspects of commercial expediency and business purpose in determining the allowability of interest payments on advances.

← Previous Next →