2021 (6) TMI 813 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 36(I)(iii) - assessee company has advanced huge amounts to related concerns and to many other shareholders and that the assessee did not have any trading relations with the above two companies and also with the shareholders - disallow the proportionate interest paid by the assessee on the ground that the interest free advances were not for the purposes of assessee's business - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee's contention of its own interest free funds being much more than the advances made as interest free loans needs verification - we deem it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo consideration in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing we find that the assessee's contention of its own interest free funds being much more than the advances made as interest free loans needs verification. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo consideration in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against disallowance of notional interest on advances made to related concerns and shareholders, disallowance of amount paid to ROC for increase in share capital, adequacy of interest-free funds, validity of CIT(A)'s decision, opportunity to furnish explanation during assessment proceedings.

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Notional Interest: The assessee filed an appeal against the disallowance of notional interest by the assessing officer, arguing that the disallowance was excessive and erroneous both factually and legally. The appellant contended that they had adequate interest-free funds exceeding the interest-free advances made during the year. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the contention regarding the adequacy of interest-free funds required verification and, therefore, set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing for the assessee.

2. Disallowance of Amount Paid to ROC: The assessing officer also disallowed the amount claimed to have been paid by the company to the ROC for the increase in share capital, holding it to be capital expenditure. The assessee challenged this disallowance, but both the assessing officer and the CIT(A) upheld it. However, the Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment, as the focus was primarily on the disallowance of notional interest.

3. Validity of CIT(A)'s Decision: The appellant raised concerns regarding the validity of the CIT(A)'s decision, alleging that the discussion in the assessment order was a cut-and-paste from some other assessment order, depriving them of the opportunity to furnish an explanation during the assessment proceedings. While the Tribunal did not delve into the specifics of this issue in the judgment, it is crucial to ensure that due process is followed in assessment proceedings, allowing the assessee a fair opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the issue of disallowance of notional interest for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer. The judgment emphasizes the importance of verifying the adequacy of interest-free funds and ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessee to be heard during assessment proceedings, highlighting the procedural fairness and legal principles upheld by the Tribunal.