2017 (12) TMI 56 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowing the interest paid on bank loan, utilised for advancing laon from the interest received on the said advance - whether set off could not be allowed on the ground that the interest on the O/D loan could not remain unadjusted? - Held that - We are of the view that the law declared by the Apex Court in Gopinathan s case 2001 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court wherein held interest received from the bank was income in assessee s hands - amount paid by the assessee as interest on the loan that he took from the bank did not reduce his income by way of interest on the fixed deposit by him in the bank was correctly applied by the assessing authority/appellate authority/Tribunal to the case in hand and no distinction has been made out by the appellant assessee to take a different view. We answer the substantial question as to the scope and applicability of Section 57(iii) in the instant case against the appellant assessee and in favour of the Revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the interest income from a loan advanced to a sister concern can be set off against the interest paid on a bank loan obtained for export business under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in disallowing the set-off of interest paid on a bank loan against the interest received from the sister concern.
3. Whether there were materials for the Appellate Tribunal to hold that the plea of set-off could not be allowed on the ground that the interest on the O/D loan could not remain unadjusted.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interest Income Set-off Against Bank Loan Interest:
The primary issue is whether the interest income obtained by the assessee from a loan advanced to a sister concern can be set off against the interest paid on a bank loan obtained for export business under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the interest income from the sister concern should be set off against the interest paid to the bank since both interest rates were the same (12% per annum), and the loan amount was exclusively used for generating income. The revenue opposed this claim, stating that the main objective of the bank loan was to facilitate export business, and the diversion of part of the loan to another concern was not related to the export business. The court concluded that no close nexus was established between the interest earned from the sister concern and the interest paid to the bank, as required under Section 57(iii) of the Act.

2. Justification of the Appellate Tribunal's Decision:
The court reviewed the decisions of the Assessing Authority, the First Appellate Authority, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, all of which disallowed the set-off claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that there was no close nexus between the interest earned from the sister concern and the interest paid to the bank. The assessee's attempt to distinguish the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. V. P. Gopinathan was unsuccessful. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the facts of the case did not support the assessee's claim for a set-off under Section 57(iii).

3. Materials Supporting the Tribunal's Decision:
The court examined whether the Tribunal had sufficient materials to hold that the plea of set-off could not be allowed. The court noted that the assessee had borrowed money from the bank for export business purposes and diverted it to a sister concern without the bank's permission. The court emphasized that the income generated by way of interest from the sister concern was classified as 'income from other sources' under Section 56 of the Act. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody, which clarified that the expenditure must be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income to qualify for deduction under Section 57(iii). The court found that the assessee failed to establish the necessary nexus between the interest income and the expenditure, thus supporting the Tribunal's decision.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the law declared by the Supreme Court in Gopinathan's case was correctly applied by the assessing authority, appellate authority, and Tribunal. The substantial question regarding the applicability of Section 57(iii) was answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

← Previous Next →