2017 (10) TMI 1424 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of claim of interest expenditure under the normal provisions and rejection of interest liability under section 115JB - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee s own case assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) has held that the issue of interest expenditure is pending before the Hon ble Special Court. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the proceedings in which the said issue of interest was issued by the custodian have been already concluded which fact has already been recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. We, therefore, direct the Ld. CIT(A) to consider this fact while deciding the issue afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) may also direct for the taxing of income in the hands of the recipient (family members) in accordance with the method of accounting followed by them and as per the provisions of the law. Ground treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C - HELD THAT - Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (4) TMI 100 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that provisions of sections 234A, 234B and 234C are applicable to notified persons also. That being the case, assessee is subject to levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. The ground raised is dismissed. Computation of interest under section 234B and 234C - HELD THAT - Similar issue arising in assessee s own case in preceding assessment years as well as in case of group concerns have been restored back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. Notably, in assessee s own case for preceding assessment years the tribunal while deciding identical issue and other appeals, vide order dated 25th August 2015, has restored it back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay
2. Rejection of Interest Expenditure Claims
3. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C
4. Computation of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appeal by the assessee was filed with a delay of 749 days. The assessee explained the delay was due to the attachment of all assets and bank accounts under the Special Courts "Trial Of Offences Relating To Transactions In Securities" Act, 1992. The delay in releasing funds by the custodian for remitting appeal fees contributed to the late filing. The revenue opposed the condonation, suggesting that the appeal fee could have been paid through personal accounts of the directors. However, the tribunal, considering the chronology of events and similar precedents in other cases of the same group, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits.

2. Rejection of Interest Expenditure Claims:
The assessee challenged the rejection of interest expenditure under normal provisions and under section 115JB. The assessing officer disallowed the interest expenditure, stating it had no nexus with the interest income earned from term deposits and treated it as unascertained liability while computing book profit under section 115JB. The tribunal noted that identical issues in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years were restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration. Following this precedent, the tribunal restored the issue to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

3. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The assessee contested the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The learned Authorised Representative conceded that the issue had been decided against the assessee in previous cases, following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, which held that these provisions apply to notified persons as well. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the ground, affirming the applicability of these sections to the assessee.

4. Computation of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The assessee argued that since the income was subject to TDS, it should not suffer levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. The tribunal noted that similar issues in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years were restored to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. Respecting this precedent, the tribunal restored the issue to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication while giving effect to the order of the first appellate authority on other issues.

Conclusion:
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, restored the issues of interest expenditure claims and computation of interest under sections 234B and 234C to the lower authorities for fresh consideration, and upheld the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.