2014 (7) TMI 1327 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 14A - Substantial question of law - sufficient funds for the purpose of investment available with the Assessee - HELD THAT - Tribunal has, in relation to the question projected before us as substantial question of law, found on facts that there were sufficient funds for the purpose of investment available with the Assessee .The documentary evidence in relation thereto was produced before the Tribunal. That indicated as to how there was increase in investment by ₹ 242.10 millions in the year whereas the shareholder fund of the Assessee was increased to ₹ 1752 millions. Thus, it is seven times more than the Assessee's investment made during the year. It is also evident that the profit after tax itself was much more and that could have covered the volume of investment. Concurrent findings have been reversed by the Tribunal by observing that the Assessee has sufficient own funds. When the Assessee has borrowed the funds even when he is having own funds, the presumption always goes in favour of the Assessee that the Assessee made investments out of own funds. We are of the opinion that the only question projected as substantial question of law by the Revenue would not enable us to entertain these Appeals.

Summary

Issues:
1. Sufficiency of funds for investment
2. Reversal of concurrent findings by the Tribunal
3. Presumption in favor of the Assessee

Analysis:

Issue 1: Sufficiency of funds for investment
The High Court examined the Tribunal's findings regarding the availability of funds for investment by the Assessee. The Tribunal had determined that the Assessee possessed ample funds for investment based on documentary evidence. The Court noted a significant increase in investment by &8377; 242.10 million during the year, while the shareholder fund had risen to &8377; 1752 million, indicating a substantial surplus. The Court highlighted that the profit after tax also exceeded the volume of investment, supporting the conclusion that the Assessee had sufficient own funds for the investments made.

Issue 2: Reversal of concurrent findings by the Tribunal
The Court addressed the Tribunal's reversal of the concurrent findings regarding the Assessee's funds for investment. The Tribunal had overturned the initial findings by observing that the Assessee possessed adequate own funds, leading to a presumption that investments were made from those funds. The Court emphasized that when an Assessee borrows funds despite having own resources, the presumption favors the Assessee utilizing own funds for investments. The Court supported the Tribunal's decision, citing alignment with previous judgments of the Court.

Issue 3: Presumption in favor of the Assessee
In considering the presumption in favor of the Assessee, the Court reiterated that when an Assessee has own funds but still borrows, the presumption is that investments are made from the Assessee's own resources. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Assessee's actions aligned with this presumption. Consequently, the Court found that the Appeals lacked merit and dismissed them, concluding that the findings of fact did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the sufficiency of the Assessee's own funds for investments and the presumption in favor of the Assessee when borrowing funds. The Court dismissed the Appeals, highlighting the absence of any substantial question of law and declining to entertain the Revenue's contentions.