2018 (4) TMI 1738 - AT - Income Tax

Interest expenditure allowable either u/s 37(1) or u/s 57(iii) - HELD THAT - In the impugned assessment year, no business has been carried out by the assessee, however, the assessee has not totally closed down its business, therefore, had to incur certain regular expenditure by way of staff salary, maintenance of factory premises, interest of loan, etc. He also found that the genuineness of expenditure incurred was never doubted by the AO. Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that, since, the expenditure incurred was for maintaining the existence of the firm as well as earning of the interest income, it is to be allowed. DR has failed to controvert the aforesaid finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) by bringing material on record. Therefore, we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Ground no.1 is dismissed. Addition made on account of long term capital gain - fair market value as on 1st April 198 - AO power u/s 55A to ascertain the fair market value by making a reference to the DVO - HELD THAT - AO was not authorized under the Act to make a reference to the DVO for ascertaining the fair market value of the property as on 1st April 1981. That being the case, the only alternative left with the AO is to grant the benefit of indexation on account of cost of acquisition as per section 55(2). In the present case, the assessee in exercise of option granted under section 55(2) having adopted the fair market value as on 1st April 1981, the same has to be accepted in the absence of any other value available with the Assessing Officer. To a pertinent question from the Bench the learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that in case the fair market value of the property as on 1st April 1981 as declared by the assessee is adopted for indexation purpose, resultant long term capital gain will be a negative figure as per the working submitted by the assessee. No infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as it is in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Puja Prints 2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Thus, we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of ?11,82,598 challenged by Revenue.
2. Deletion of addition made on account of long term capital gain challenged by Revenue.

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of ?11,82,598
The Revenue challenged the deletion of addition of ?11,82,598 made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure claimed by the assessee, leading to the dispute. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed deduction of ?11,82,173 under section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, stating that the expenditure was for maintaining the existence of the firm and earning interest income. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the expenditure was genuine and necessary for the firm's existence and income generation. The Revenue's challenge was dismissed due to lack of evidence contradicting the Commissioner's findings.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition made on account of long term capital gain
The Revenue challenged the deletion of addition related to long term capital gain computation. The Assessing Officer disputed the cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee for indexation purposes. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining fair market value when the value declared by the assessee exceeded the market value. The Tribunal cited relevant legal provisions and a prior High Court decision to support its ruling. As the assessee's valuation was accepted and the long term capital gain was negative, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to dismiss the Revenue's challenge. The appeal and cross objection were both dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) in both issues, dismissing the Revenue's challenges. The Tribunal provided detailed reasoning based on legal provisions and precedents to support its rulings, ensuring a fair and thorough analysis of the issues involved in the case.