2015 (7) TMI 35 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance on account of interest expenses - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that - CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue and recorded that the assessee was involved in the business of sub-letting of properties, and during the relevant year, it had taken 45 properties on rent and paid ₹ 49.20 lakhs, and while on subletting he received ₹ 56.24 lakhs resulting into net surplus of rent shown as business income of ₹ 7.04 lakhs. Assessee has utilized ₹ 47.60 lakhs for purchase of properties from which income of ₹ 14.95 lakhs was earned as rent and shown under the head income from house property . The balance amount of ₹ 114.34 lakhs was claimed by the assessee to have been utilized for business of construction. The CIT(A) has further recorded that this fund flow has substance to show clear nexus of utilization of borrowed fund for earning income in the form of interest, rent income and business income of construction, and has paid TDS on the interest payment wherever applicable. There being no material before us to controvert these findings of the CIT(A), we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. Difference in valuation of closing work in progress - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) has recorded that the AO has not rejected books of accounts of the assessee and has made addition to closing stock based on the statement of Shri J.P. Shah and inquiry from Inspector without confronting to the assessee. We are unable to appreciate the stand of the AO that structural engineer, shri J.P. Shah, being 77 years of age, and suffering from blood pressure, sugar and other diseases, his certificate could not be relied upon. The CIT(A) has further recorded that the AO s exercise of such estimation will not result into any substantial Revenue gaining exercise because the assesse after following proper method and accounting standard already reflected profit in respective year and paid taxes thereon. In reply to a specific query from the Bench, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that project has already completed and its final profit & loss has already been declared and taxed as such by the department. We find that there is no material before us to reject the valuation of work-in-progress which was also supported by certificate of structural engineer, Shri J.P. Shah. In these facts of the case, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to accept the valuation of closing work-in-progress as certified by the structural engineer in his certificate, and in deleting the addition - Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest expenses.
2. Valuation of closing work in progress.
3. Depreciation rate on new commercial vehicles.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest Expenses
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs. 56,04,681. The Revenue argued that there was no evidence of a nexus between the expenses incurred and the corresponding income earned. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had utilized borrowed funds for various business activities, including sub-letting properties and construction, with a clear nexus between the borrowed funds and income earned. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the Revenue failed to prove that the expenses were not genuine or not incurred for business purposes. Thus, the appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Issue 2: Valuation of Closing Work in Progress
The Revenue contested the deletion of the difference in valuation of closing work in progress amounting to Rs. 73,48,000. The Revenue argued that the structural engineer's certificate was not credible. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO's estimation exercise would not result in substantial revenue gain as the assessee had already reflected profits and paid taxes. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was no reason to reject the valuation of work-in-progress supported by the structural engineer's certificate. Therefore, the appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Issue 3: Depreciation Rate on New Commercial Vehicles
The assessee's CO challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm depreciation at 15% instead of the claimed 50% on new commercial vehicles purchased during the year. The Tribunal found no justification for admitting additional evidence and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the depreciation rate. The CO's ground on this issue was dismissed.

In conclusion, both the appeal of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee were dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all the issues raised in the case.