2014 (7) TMI 1282 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 36(1)(iii) - interest free advances and outstanding advances - commercial expediency - Held that - We find that there was opening debit balance of ₹ 4413287/- in case of Jay Ess Exports. No doubt certain purchases have been made from this party but for making purchases fresh payments have been made to this party and at all relevant time, the debit balances has rather increased during the year. We asked the assessee whether any disallowance was made in the earlier year and he admitted that disallowance was made with reference to the debit balance in case of Jay Ess Exports which was not challenged by the assessee. Assessee could not point out why huge advances have to be given to this party at all times, therefore in our opinion, the commercial expediency can not be inferred in this case - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana confirming the addition of Rs. 349760 made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
2. The assessee contended that the advances were for business purposes and should not attract disallowance of interest. Reference was made to case laws such as CIT V. Jugal Kishore and S.A. Builders Ltd. V. CIT to support their argument.
3. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest based on the debit balance in the account of Jay Ess Exports, stating that the commercial expediency could not be inferred. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this decision citing the precedent in the case of CIT V. Abhishek Industries.
4. The Tribunal found that the advances to Jay Ess Exports did not show commercial expediency, as the debit balance increased over time. The Tribunal also noted that the decision in S.A. Builders Ltd. V. CIT had been doubted by the Supreme Court and emphasized the need to establish commercial expediency for interest-free loans.
5. The Tribunal held that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Abhishek Industries was binding on them, and as there was no commercial expediency shown in giving the advances to Jay Ess Exports, the disallowance of interest was justified.
6. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and upholding the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.