2021 (4) TMI 670 - AT - Income Tax

Bad debts - Disallowance of deduction claimed in respect of notional interest taxed as income in earlier year, which was not realized by the appellant - assessee claimed this amount of interest as deductible amount either as a bad debts or business loss under section 36(1)(vii) and/or section 28 by filing revised return - AO rejected the claim of assessee on the ground that principal amount is recovered - HELD THAT - We have noted that for claiming the said amount the assessee has not fulfilled the condition prescribed under section 36(2) for claiming bad debts meaning thereby the assessee has not offered the said notional income as its income in earlier years. Hence, the assessee is not eligible for deduction of bad debts. Similarly, it was never the claim of the assessee that the inter corporate deposit was given for business purpose. Even otherwise, the assessee is not in money lending, therefore, the assessee cannot claim that the assessee made inter corporate deposit in the course of his business. During the earlier years the assessee never claimed as a business loss on account of non-receipt of interest on such inter corporate deposit, therefore, the assessee is also not entitled for business loss as well. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Deduction of notional interest as business loss claimed by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2007-08. The appellant claimed a deduction of ?1,73,51,790 as business loss, which was not allowed by the assessing officer. The appellant argued that the amount had been taxed in earlier years as notional interest on inter corporate deposits with Nippon Investments Private Limited, but not realized. The assessing officer added the notional interest as income. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, citing a previous Tribunal order against the appellant.

2. The appellant contended that the interest amount was taxed as business income in previous years, making it eligible for deduction. The assessing officer, however, rejected the claim, stating that the principal amount was recovered, and the appellant did not fulfill the conditions for claiming bad debts. The appellant argued that since the interest was not received, it should be deductible as business loss under section 28. The appellant also cited legal precedents to support their position.

3. The Revenue supported the lower authorities' decision, stating that the appellant did not show income from the inter corporate deposit and did not meet the conditions for claiming bad debts. The Revenue argued that the appellant was not engaged in money lending and had not claimed business loss in earlier years. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to fulfill the conditions for claiming bad debts and that the inter corporate deposit was not made for business purposes.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant was not eligible for deduction of bad debts or business loss. The legal precedents cited by the appellant were deemed inapplicable to the case at hand. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim for deduction of notional interest as business loss was not valid based on the facts and circumstances presented.

5. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, rejecting the appellant's claim for deduction of notional interest as business loss, and dismissed the appeal accordingly. The order was pronounced on 22 March 2021.