2018 (12) TMI 470 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - change of opinion - addition u/s 36(1)(iii) on interest-free advance made by the assessee - tangible material or borrowed satisfaction - Held that - In the present case, however, we are not inclined to undertake minute scrutiny of any reasons and other related material on record. This is so because we are convinced that on merit also assuming that the reassessment is permitted, Revenue does not have an arguable case. We may refer to the decision of this Court in case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. vs. CIT 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The sole disallowance arising out of the order of reassessment passed by the Assessing Officer was one under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It related to interest-free advance made by the assessee to one Nilesh Thakur. The CIT appeals and the Tribunal on facts came to the conclusion that the assessee had not utilized interest bearing borrowed funds for making such interest-free advances. It was found that the assessee had its own interest-free fund far in excess of interest-free advance. This being a pure question of fact, we do not see any question of law in this respect arising. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings.
2. Merits of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Validity of reassessment proceedings:
The High Court examined the first issue concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal had held the reassessment as invalid, questioning the Assessing Officer's reliance on borrowed satisfaction without independent inquiries. The Court acknowledged the arguable case presented by the Revenue regarding the Assessing Officer's reasonable belief for income escapement. However, the Court refrained from minutely scrutinizing the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer due to the lack of arguable case on merit even if reassessment was valid. The Court cited the decision in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. vs. CIT 313 ITR 340 to support its stance. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the tax appeals, concluding that Revenue lacked an arguable case even if reassessment was allowed.

Issue 2: Merits of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
Regarding the second issue on the merits of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, the Tribunal and CIT appeals had both found the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer unjustified. The disallowance in question related to an interest-free advance made by the assessee to an individual. It was determined that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds of its own, negating the need for utilizing borrowed funds for the advance. Since this was a factual determination, the Court found no legal question arising from it. Consequently, the Court dismissed the tax appeals based on the lack of legal merit in this regard.

In summary, the High Court addressed the issues of the validity of reassessment proceedings and the merits of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that even if the reassessment was valid, the Revenue lacked an arguable case on merit. Additionally, the Court dismissed the tax appeals as the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deemed unjustified based on factual findings regarding the availability of interest-free funds.