2013 (9) TMI 593 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of Interest on the ground that there is huge cash balance and the borrowed money is utilized for the non-business purpose Also, alleged that part of business is illegal business Held that - The assessee carried out only one business of Angadia and from such composite business, profit/loss is worked out in the respective years and the AO himself has treated the business of the assessee to be one business Presumption of A.O. is that part of business is illegal business and part is legal business - However, fact on record remains that there is only one business of the assessee, part of which is not held to be illegal either by IT department or by any other government agency. Interest payment is allowed as a business expenditure Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Four appeals by Revenue against CIT(A) orders under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 concerning deletion of interest disallowance.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against CIT(A) orders regarding the deletion of interest disallowance in four assessment years. The Revenue contended that the borrowed money was kept as cash on hand and not utilized for business purposes, implying an illegal business operation. The Revenue argued that if the assessee was engaged in an illegal money transfer business, the losses from such activity should not offset profits from legal operations. The assessee, however, maintained that it operated a legitimate business of Angadia, transferring goods, valuables, posts, and cash for clients. The assessee emphasized that no authority had deemed any part of its business illegal, and the borrowed funds were used for business purposes. The ITAT observed that the AO did not allege any part of the assessee's business to be illegal and that the business was treated as one integrated entity. The ITAT rejected the Revenue's contentions of separate legal and illegal businesses, emphasizing the absence of evidence supporting such claims.

The AO disallowed interest based on the substantial cash balance held by the assessee. However, the ITAT referred to previous decisions where interest disallowance was overturned due to the business nature requiring significant cash holdings for timely payments. The ITAT cited cases where maintaining cash balances was necessary for business operations, indicating that borrowed funds were indeed utilized for business purposes. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A) decisions to delete interest disallowance, emphasizing that no diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes was established. As no contradictory decisions were presented, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals based on the consistent legal principles applied in similar cases.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A) decisions to delete interest disallowances. The ITAT found no evidence to support the Revenue's claims of illegal business operations or improper utilization of borrowed funds, aligning with previous decisions emphasizing the legitimate business nature of the assessee's operations.