9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1193 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of cessation of loan - written off of loan from OPGC - CIT-A deleted the addition - Held that - The findings of the CIT(A) indicate that the amount written-off (written back by the assessee in its accounts) represents a part of the loan from OPGC which was taken long back, we find that the facts are not controverted by ld D.R and also the revenue not place cogent material on record to suggest that the deduction or allowance in respect of this amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- was allowed to the assessee in any earlier assessment year or year. CIT(A) has dealt on the issue and after enquiring the materials available on record vis- -vis explanation of the assessee, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CI(A) and uphold the same. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?50,00,000/- on account of disallowance of cessation of loan. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Disallowance of Cessation of Loan: The sole issue in this appeal revolves around the deletion of an addition of ?50,00,000/- by the CIT(A) concerning the disallowance of cessation of loan. The assessee, a wholly-owned Government company engaged in industrial development, filed its return for the assessment year 2010-2011, initially showing NIL total income and later revised to a business loss of ?6,56,56,115/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had deducted ?50,00,000/- as exempt income from the total credited amount of ?24,21,39,000/- in the profit and loss account. The assessee explained that the amount in question was an outstanding loan from OPGC, advanced prior to 1990 for supply of products/services by subsidiaries of IDCOL Group. This loan, along with accrued interest, was written back unilaterally in the accounts of 2009-10 without confirmation from OPGC, and the principal amount of ?50,00,000/- was not offered to tax as it was considered a capital receipt, not taxable under sections 28(iv) or 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The AO rejected this explanation, citing section 41(1)(a) of the Act, which includes unilateral cessation of liability within its purview. The AO added ?50,00,000/- to the total income, treating it as taxable income due to cessation of liability. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) considered the submissions and remand report from the AO. The CIT(A) observed that section 41(1) applies only to trading liabilities or liabilities that had been debited to the profit and loss account in earlier years. The CIT(A) found no evidence that the ?50,00,000/- loan had been allowed as a deduction or allowance in any earlier assessment year. Therefore, the CIT(A) concluded that the provisions of section 41(1) were not applicable to the loan amount and directed the deletion of the addition. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue argued that the CIT(A) was unjustified in deleting the addition, asserting that the AO had correctly applied section 41(1) and that the assessee's unilateral write-back of the loan should be taxable. The assessee supported the CIT(A)'s order, providing additional documentation, including a certificate of adjustment of loan and financial statements, to substantiate the claim that the loan was a capital receipt. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and materials, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the ?50,00,000/- was allowed as a deduction in any earlier year. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition of ?50,00,000/- as the provisions of section 41(1) were not applicable to the loan amount, which was not a trading liability nor allowed as a deduction in earlier years. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
