2021 (4) TMI 857 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowing unpaid interest u/s. 43B - AO observed that the assessee company failed to furnish any logic in apportioning at the ratios mentioned by itself - HELD THAT - As per the provisions of Clause(d) of section 43B of IT Act any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan from any public financial institution in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreement governing such loan is allowable as deduction if such sum is actually paid. In the instant case the assessee company failed to pay the interest amount as detailed above of ₹ 13,36,34,769/- on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The proviso clearly states that the deduction is allowable if the amount is actually paid. Therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity may be given to assessee to substantiate its claim by filling documentary evidence before the AO. Accordingly, we remit the issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue in dispute by examining the material which will be put-forth by the assessee before him and in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the matter. The assessee is directed to substantiate its claim by filing documentary evidence before the AO. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee on this issue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowed unpaid interest under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. Background and Assessment Proceedings:
The appeal pertains to the disallowance of unpaid interest amounting to ?13,36,34,769 under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in aluminum manufacturing, filed its return for A.Y. 2014-15 showing a loss. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) by determining the total income at a negative amount.

2. Disputed Interest Expenses:
During assessment, the AO noted interest expenses debited to the P&L Account amounting to ?33,81,76,449. The assessee explained that a portion of this interest was transferred to capital work in progress, leaving unpaid interest of ?13,36,34,769. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance citing reasons related to capitalization, non-payment by the appellant, and the basis of liability for interest payment.

3. Arguments Before ITAT:
The appellant argued that only a portion of the total interest was charged to the P&L Account, with the rest capitalized. They contended that unpaid interest was correctly apportioned and should not be disallowed under section 43B. The appellant sought deletion of the disallowance.

4. Revenue's Position:
The Revenue, relying on previous orders, argued that interest expenses can only be allowed on actual payment basis. As the unpaid interest was not paid, it should be disallowed for the relevant year.

5. ITAT Decision and Directions:
After considering the submissions and reviewing the material on record, the ITAT observed that the AO had not been provided with sufficient logic for the apportionment of interest. They directed the issue back to the AO for further examination based on documentary evidence to be submitted by the assessee. The ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate their claim.

6. Conclusion:
The ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO for reevaluation based on additional evidence to be presented by the assessee. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, granting the assessee an opportunity to support their claim regarding the unpaid interest disallowance.

This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the judgment, including the background, disputed interest expenses, arguments presented, the ITAT decision, and the subsequent directions provided for further assessment by the AO.