2016 (8) TMI 1522 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest expenditure - assessee has not carried out any business activity and the payment of interest on the loan taken for paying of earlier loan is thus not for the purposes of business - HELD THAT - AO has accepted that the loans old or new have been taken for the purpose of business. This fact has neither been denied nor contradicted anywhere in the assessment order. Since this is an established fact that the real estate business is always carried out on the basis of loans from various agencies and their utilization is exclusively to expand the business without in any way leading to the fact that any stoppage or a lull period would hamper the construction work. Even if, for argument sake, the findings of the Ld. AO are considered that there was no business due to stay order of the court, thus it cannot be said that the repair works, construction of passage and other allied and facility items did not continue during this period also as the stay order was purely for constructing new units and extension of the existing units. It is proved that business of the assessee was not discontinued rather temporarily stayed under the order of the Hon ble Court which has been revived now by vacation of stay with effect from settlement reached between parties. The suspension or discontinuation of one of the activities of business out of several such activities does not disentitle the taxpayer from deduction of interest or other expenditure incidental to the business. All the business activities taken together constitutes the business undertaking as one and so long the same remains under the common management with common resource employment and common establishment and control it cannot be said that the business activity is separate and distinct. The appellant continued its business in the relevant assessment year and the business was neither closed nor discontinued nor it had ever ceased to be functional during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. Thus we direct the AO to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest expenditure claimed for business purposes.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure:
The primary issue in these appeals concerns the disallowance of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee for business purposes. The assessee's case was picked up for scrutiny assessment, and the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the interest expenditure on the grounds that the assessee had not carried out any business activity during the relevant assessment years and that the interest paid on loans taken to repay earlier loans was not for business purposes.

The assessee argued that the interest expenditure should be allowed as a deduction, citing previous decisions by the ITAT Jaipur Bench and various judicial pronouncements. The assessee contended that the interest expenditure was incurred for business purposes and that the character of the loans remained unchanged despite the loans being used to repay earlier loans. The assessee relied on the decisions in cases such as Shingar Lamps Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, KNP Securities (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, and CIT vs. Raj Kumar Singh, among others.

The AO and the CIT (A) dismissed the assessee's appeals, arguing that the facts of the current year were distinguishable from those of earlier years and that the business activity had been discontinued for an extended period. The CIT (A) also relied on a remand report by the AO, which suggested that the interest expenditure was not directly linked to the business activities of the assessee.

Upon appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee reiterated its arguments, emphasizing that the business was only temporarily suspended due to a stay order by the Rajasthan High Court and that the interest expenditure was incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal noted that in earlier years, the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee had been allowed by the department itself. The Tribunal found that the fresh loans taken during the year under consideration were used to repay old loans taken for business purposes, and therefore, the character of the loans remained unchanged.

The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2007-08, where it had allowed the interest expenditure. The Tribunal concluded that the facts in the current year were identical to those in earlier years, and there was no contrary material on record to suggest a change in facts and circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2011-12.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, holding that the interest expenditure was incurred for business purposes and should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the character of the loans remained unchanged despite being used to repay earlier loans and that the business was only temporarily suspended due to external factors beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with its earlier rulings in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years.