2021 (8) TMI 1354 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest u/s. 57 (iii) - proportionately disallowing interest on borrowing invoked alleging that entire borrowed funds were not utilized for the purpose of investment in partnership concerns - under the arbitration settlement with the partners, the assessee had to accept rights in respect of three flats in an under construction project at a somewhat high value - HELD THAT - As rightly held by the assessee in respect of three flats, which are valued by the arbitrator at Rs. 3.25 crores, cannot be considered in isolation with assessee s investment in the firm. The investment made by the assessee in the firm, to that extent, remains in existence-through in a different form because of the compulsion of a binding arbitration award rather than choice of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the disallowance is devoid of legally sustainable and factually correct basis. Therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to correctness of order dated 20th May 2019 in assessment u/s. 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest on Borrowing:
The Assessing Officer disallowed interest deduction of Rs. 19,62,710, alleging that entire borrowed funds were not utilized for investment in partnership concerns. The appellant argued that capital contribution in the concerns exceeded the borrowed funds. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, considering the purpose of the borrowed funds and the nexus with income earned. The Tribunal found that the borrowed funds were used elsewhere, but the disallowance lacked a legally sustainable basis. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.

Issue 2: Deduction of Interest on Flats:
The appellant contended that flats allotted under consent terms following an Arbitration Award constituted business assets qualifying for interest deduction on borrowed funds. The Assessing Officer disallowed interest on the basis that the funds were not utilized for earning interest income. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, emphasizing the specific purpose of expenditure for earning income. The Tribunal found that the rights in the flats were part of the investment in the firm, and the disallowance lacked a factual and legal basis. The impugned disallowance of Rs. 19,62,170 was directed to be deleted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of interest on borrowing and interest on flats. The decision highlighted the necessity of a clear nexus between expenditure and income earned, emphasizing the purpose of expenditure for income generation. The judgment clarified the distinction between allowable expenses under section 37 and section 57 of the Income Tax Act, ensuring expenses are solely and exclusively for earning income.