2020 (2) TMI 1617 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest expenses u/s. 37(1) OR u/s. 40A(2)(b) - during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings AO noticed that the assessee has paid interest @ 18% and in one case even 21%, to the persons specified u/s 40A(2)(b) - CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to interest payment in excess of 15% - HELD THAT - We find that there is no indication by any of the authorities below to the effect as to on what basis the market rate of interest has been ascertained. We have also noted that the loans are fully unsecured and on demand. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any material to indicate that the interest rate paid by the assessee is excessive or unreasonable, we are of the considered view that the interest paid by the assessee is not hit by the provisions of section 40A(2)(b). In any event, the unsecured loans on demand being taken at interest @ 18%, or even @ 21%, are quite in consonance with the ground realities in business. It is also an undisputed position that the assessee had borrowed secured loans from banks @ 17% p.a. The impugned payments cannot therefore be said to be excessive - We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to correctness of CIT(A)'s order on assessment under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2013-14 regarding disallowance of interest expenses under sections 37(1) and 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order dated 4th June, 2018, concerning the assessment under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2013-14. The grievances raised by the appellant primarily revolved around the disallowance of interest expenses under sections 37(1) and 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the interest expenses were incurred for the business purpose and were reasonable. The CIT(A) disallowed part of the interest expenditure without providing an opportunity for the appellant to explain or prove the reasonableness of the interest payments made to related parties under section 40A(2)(b).

The appellant argued that the interest payments to related parties were reasonable as the appellant and its sister firms borrowed secured funds from banks at comparable rates. The CIT(A) was criticized for not considering the explanations provided by the appellant regarding the reasonableness of the interest paid to parties covered under section 40A(2)(b). The appellant maintained that the loans obtained from related parties were solely for business purposes, and thus, there should be no disallowance on that basis.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant, a partnership firm engaged in the manufacturing and trading of cloth, had paid interest to specified parties under section 40A(2)(b) at rates exceeding 12% per annum. The Assessing Officer found these rates excessive and disallowed interest paid in excess of 12%. The CIT(A) further restricted the disallowance to interest payments exceeding 15%. However, the Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to ascertain the market rate of interest and that the loans were unsecured and on demand.

Considering the absence of material indicating the excessive or unreasonable nature of the interest rates paid by the appellant, the Tribunal held that the interest payments were not in violation of section 40A(2)(b). Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the interest rates of 18% or 21% for unsecured loans on demand were reasonable in the business context, especially when compared to secured loans obtained from banks at 17% per annum. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's plea and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of interest payments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds that the interest payments made by the appellant were reasonable and not excessive, thereby overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow a portion of the interest expenses under section 40A(2)(b).