2013 (8) TMI 38 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of notional interest - advance amount to Toy N Toy International against the purchase of building with furniture fixture fittings - Held that - The assessee started giving advances in financial year 2006-07 and on 12.5.2006 MOU was executed between the parties for transfer of factory premises and part possession was conveyed. On 2.7.2007 sale deed was executed. Therefore, it can be concluded that till the conclusion of sale deed amounts advanced continued to be for acquisition of assets for which Tribunal had already deleted the notional interest in earlier year. The assessee has passed an entry for purchase of asset on 2.7.2007. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of earlier year as the transaction started in earlier year and the amount advanced being for purchase of an asset for business purposes, no disallowance can be made. AO wrongly made the addition by holding that assessee itself added back notional interest from 25.5.2007 which is though a fact but the interest was added back on amounts advanced which was over and above the sale consideration. Therefore, no difference in facts and circumstances of the present case with the earlier year & consequently the addition deleted. In favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Addition of notional interest on advance amount for the purchase of a building.
2. Discrepancy in interest calculation for a specific period.
3. Validity of the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of notional interest on advance amount for the purchase of a building
The assessee appealed against the Ld CIT(A)'s decision to add Rs.13,34,880 as notional interest on an advance given to Toy N Toy International for the purchase of a building. The Assessing Officer noted that the advance remained outstanding as an opening balance, and interest was added from 25.5.2007 but not for the period from 1.4.2007 to 24.5.2007. The Ld CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the appellant had itself added notional interest for a later period. The Ld CIT(A) justified the Assessing Officer's action, emphasizing that the interest for the earlier period was not added, leading to the addition. The appellant contended that the transaction was for acquiring an asset, and the Assessing Officer's addition was based on the appellant's voluntary addition of interest for a later period. The Tribunal found that the facts were similar to the earlier year, where the Tribunal had deleted notional interest. The Tribunal concluded that the advance was for acquiring assets for business purposes, following the earlier Tribunal order, and deleted the addition.

Issue 2: Discrepancy in interest calculation for a specific period
The discrepancy arose from the Assessing Officer's calculation of interest for a specific period, which the appellant argued was not justified as the transaction was for acquiring assets. The Ld CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing the appellant's voluntary addition of interest for a later period. The Tribunal, however, found no difference in the facts and circumstances compared to the earlier year, where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction began in the earlier year and continued until the sale deed was executed, signifying the acquisition of assets for business purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 3: Validity of the order passed by the Assessing Officer
The Assessing Officer's order to add notional interest for a specific period was challenged by the assessee, arguing that the transaction was for acquiring assets and the interest was charged on amounts beyond the sale consideration. The Ld CIT(A) supported the Assessing Officer's decision, stating the appellant's voluntary addition of interest for a later period. However, the Tribunal found the facts consistent with the earlier year's ruling, where notional interest was deleted. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer wrongly made the addition, and following the earlier Tribunal order, the addition was deleted, allowing the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the addition of notional interest as the transaction was for acquiring assets for business purposes, consistent with the earlier Tribunal order.

← Previous Next →