2018 (4) TMI 451 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of proportionate interest and adhoc expenses - Held that - Since the authorities below have failed to point-out that funds have been extended to Ms. Monisha Mittal out of borrowed funds, therefore, none of the decisions cited by the Ld. D.R. would support the case of the Revenue. Therefore, there is no justification for the authorities below to disallow proportionate interest of ₹ 4,49,437/-. Similarly, out of addition of ₹ 30,000/- on account of disallowance of expenses, the A.O. has not given any specific finding against the assessee-firm as to how much expenses have not been supported by bills and vouchers and as to how the expenses are not admissible for deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) noted in his finding that disallowance have been made by A.O. on estimate basis only. It, therefore, appears that it is an adhoc addition in nature. Therefore, addition of ₹ 30,000/- would also not sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of proportionate interest on interest-free loan advanced.
2. Disallowance of expenses on an adhoc basis.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of proportionate interest on interest-free loan advanced

The case involved the disallowance of proportionate interest on an interest-free loan advanced by the assessee to a third party. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed interest of ?4,99,437 based on the argument that the assessee firm was paying interest on funds raised for business purposes while advancing an interest-free loan for non-business purposes. The assessee contended that the loan was initially interest-bearing, but due to default in payment, interest was waived off for a fixed tenure. The assessee argued that the loan was given from interest-free funds, supported by the balance sheet. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. However, the tribunal, referring to legal precedents, found that no loan or advance was given in the relevant assessment year and that the funds were available for specific business purposes. The tribunal held that the authorities failed to establish a nexus between borrowed funds and the advance, ultimately deleting the disallowance.

Issue 2: Disallowance of expenses on an adhoc basis

The second issue pertained to the disallowance of expenses amounting to ?30,000 on an adhoc basis. The A.O. disallowed 10% of certain expenses due to lack of complete documentation. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. However, the tribunal found that the A.O. did not provide specific findings on unsupported expenses or their inadmissibility, indicating an adhoc nature of the addition. Consequently, the tribunal deleted the ?30,000 addition, as the disallowance lacked a proper basis.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting both the additions of ?4,99,437 and ?30,000. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing a clear link between borrowed funds and advances, as well as the necessity for specific findings to support disallowances, emphasizing the need for a factual and legally sound basis for such decisions.