2018 (12) TMI 1450 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - interest bearing funds have been utilized for non - business purposes - Held that - The advances have been made to M/s Suresh Goel & Son (HUF) for the purpose of the business and on account of commercial expediency, and it has not been established by the learned Assessing Officer that advances are for non-business purposes and as such, disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act for diverting interest-bearing funds to relatives without charging interest.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act

1. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had taken secured loans and paid interest on them, while also providing interest-free amounts to related parties. The AO disallowed a portion of the interest amount based on the belief that the funds were diverted to relatives without charging interest.

2. The assessee contended that the advances were for business purposes, thus no disallowance should be made. However, the AO disallowed a specific amount, relying on a similar disallowance made in the previous assessment year.

3. The CIT(A) analyzed the situation and concluded that while the advances were for business purposes, the interest paid on borrowed funds for purchasing property in the partners' names could not be allowed as a deduction. However, adjustments were made to exclude certain amounts and calculate the net diversion of funds, resulting in a revised disallowance of interest.

4. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of commercial expediency in claiming deductions under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was noted that if funds were advanced for business purposes and commercial expediency was established, no disallowance should be made.

5. Relying on the precedents set by higher courts and tribunals, the Tribunal held that the advances made to the related party were for business purposes and commercial expediency. As the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the advances were for non-business purposes, the disallowance of interest was deemed unsustainable in law.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of the disallowed interest amount, as the advances were found to be made for business purposes and in line with commercial expediency.

7. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed based on the findings of the Tribunal and the principles of commercial expediency established in relevant judicial decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of commercial expediency in determining the allowability of deductions under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment highlighted that if funds were advanced for business purposes and commercial expediency was established, no disallowance of interest should be made, as evidenced by the precedents set by higher courts and tribunals.