2017 (10) TMI 1354 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of the loss arising due to the payment made by the assessee towards the premature termination of the securitization agreement with Axis Bank - Nature of loss - AO had held that the nature of the outstanding principle could partake the character of the capital loss only and not Revenue loss. - Held that - On merits the assessee has produced no evidence to substantiate his case that the income in respect of the securitization of the said loans has been offered during the relevant assessment years. The assessee is also not in a position to show the agreement with the Axis Bank in respect of the preclosure of the securitization or the mutually agreed to computation. - Additions confirmed. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - CIT(A) had excluded the interest amounts pertaining to the term loans for the purpose of computing the disallowance u/s. 14A r. w. r. 8D. - Held that - The assessee has produced evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) claiming that the investment in the government securities have yielded taxable income and the same have been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). However as these evidences have not been verified by the AO in the interest of natural justice the issue of the computation of the disallowance u/s. 14A r. w. r. 8D is restored to the file of the AO only because the evidences have been produced before the Ld. CIT(A) and he has done the verification without granting an opportunity to the AO. - Decided in favor of revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of loss due to premature termination of the securitization agreement.
2. Re-computation of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
3. Deletion of addition regarding the reversal of provisions for NPAs.
4. Deletion of disallowance of provision for expenses.
5. Deletion of disallowance for delayed payments of employee contributions to ESI and PF.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Loss due to Premature Termination of Securitization Agreement:
The assessee appealed against the confirmation of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the loss arising from the premature termination of the securitization agreement with Axis Bank. The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 8,61,13,095 due to this termination, arguing that the income from securitization had been offered for taxation in earlier years. However, the AO disallowed the loss, stating that the nature of the outstanding principal could only be considered a capital loss, not a revenue loss. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting the lack of evidence regarding the pre-closure terms. The Tribunal also found no evidence to substantiate the assessee's claim and thus dismissed the appeal.

2. Re-computation of Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s direction to re-compute the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee had earned dividend income and made a suo motu disallowance of 10% of the dividend income. The AO had computed the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rule 8D(2)(iii). The CIT(A) excluded interest amounts pertaining to term loans and investments in government securities yielding taxable income from the computation. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-adjudication, noting that the AO had not been given an opportunity to verify the evidence presented before the CIT(A).

3. Deletion of Addition Regarding the Reversal of Provisions for NPAs:
The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO concerning the reversal of provisions for NPAs. The AO had disallowed the provision, stating the assessee had not identified the relatable income and the year it was offered. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance based on evidence that the provision for NPAs had been reversed in subsequent years. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-verification, as the CIT(A) had considered fresh evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to review it.

4. Deletion of Disallowance of Provision for Expenses:
The AO had disallowed Rs. 40 lakhs marked as a provision for expenses, which the assessee claimed to have disallowed suo motu under Section 40(a)(ia) while filing the return. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, but the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-adjudication, as the evidence had not been presented to the AO initially.

5. Deletion of Disallowance for Delayed Payments of Employee Contributions to ESI and PF:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance for delayed payments of employee contributions to ESI and PF. The CIT(A) followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which favored the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere.

Conclusion:
- The assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of loss due to premature termination of the securitization agreement was dismissed.
- The issues regarding re-computation under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, reversal of provisions for NPAs, and provision for expenses were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
- The deletion of disallowance for delayed payments of employee contributions to ESI and PF was upheld.
- The Revenue's appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.