2022 (1) TMI 483 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest - assessee had utilised his borrowed funds for making investments in shares - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to mention that the assessee is entitled to withdraw his own capital from the profession, which is interest free, for any other purpose, and yet perform his professional activities utilizing his interest-bearing funds. Therefore, it is apparent that the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A) has not taken into consideration of these factors while making disallowance towards interest expenditure. In this situation, we are of the view that the addition made by the Ld. A.O which was further sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not appropriate. It is also evident that the assessee has interest free borrowings also to certain extent. These aspects were also not taken into consideration by the Ld. Revenue Authorities while arriving at the conclusion. Therefore, we hereby delete the addition made by the Ld. A.O on this count which was further sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Addition u/s 68 - unexplained loan credits - HELD THAT - From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the assessee has furnished the particulars of the loan creditors such as name, address, PAN etc. It is also a fact that the transactions are routed through banking channels. In this situation, the Ld. Revenue Authorities ought to have made some further enquiry on this regard before making addition in the hands of the assessee. It is also apparent that the assessee had repaid the amount of ₹ 62,50,000/- to M/s. Kawrat Associates and also obtained confirmation statement from Sri Ganesh Associates. In this situation, we are of the view that the addition made by the Ld. A.O. which was further sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is unwarranted. Hence, we hereby set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Ld. A.O to delete the addition made invoking the provisions of Section 68. Revision u/s 263 - nature of payment received by the assessee- As per CIT-A amount received by the assessee is managerial remuneration and not professional fees - HELD THAT - The assessee is a Doctor by profession and the assessee has got controlling interest in the Ravindranath GE Medical Associates Private Limited which is running hospital. These aspects have been well examined by the Ld. A.O and he has held that the amount received by the assessee is professional income received for his professional service as Doctor and also granted deductions for the expenditure incurred by the assessee while disallowing certain interest expenditure. Being a Doctor the assessee is eligible to receive professional fee for the services rendered to the patients admitted in the Hospital. Further during the course of the proceedings before the Ld.PCIT the assessee had submitted various evidences including the service agreement dated 30/08/2008 and also the board resolution of the company and TDS certificate U/s.194J to justify his claim and the Ld.PCIT could not draw any negative inference from the same. Further there is also nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has received managerial remuneration. Therefore the observation of the Ld.PCIT is devoid of merit. Hence, we hereby set-aside the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s 263. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest expenditure and addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. Examination of the nature of payment received by the assessee amounting to ?3 Crs.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure:
In ITA No. 535/Hyd/2018, the assessee challenged the disallowance of interest expenditure of ?80,96,491 by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AO disallowed the amount as the borrowed funds were used for investments in shares, not directly related to the assessee's profession. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating lack of nexus between borrowed funds and professional income. However, the tribunal found the disallowance inappropriate. It noted the failure to quantify the loan amount and consider the assessee's own funds. The tribunal emphasized the assessee's right to use interest-free capital for non-professional purposes and overturned the disallowance.

2. Addition under Section 68 of the Act:
The Ld. AO added ?3 Crs under section 68 for unsecured loans from two entities. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition due to insufficient proof of creditors' identity and creditworthiness. The tribunal disagreed, noting the furnished details and banking transactions. It highlighted repayments made and confirmation statements obtained, concluding the addition was unwarranted. The tribunal directed the Ld. AO to delete the ?3 Crs addition under section 68.

3. Examination of Payment Nature:
In ITA No. 1087/Hyd/2018, the Ld. Pr. CIT questioned the nature of a ?3 Crs payment received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) considered it managerial remuneration, not professional fees, and set aside the Ld. AO's order for further examination. However, the tribunal found the Ld. Pr. CIT's observation lacking merit. It affirmed the assessee's professional status as a doctor and controlling interest in a medical company. The tribunal deemed the payment as professional income for medical services, overturning the Ld. Pr. CIT's decision and allowing the assessee's appeals.

In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the disallowance of interest expenditure and addition under section 68, while confirming the nature of the payment received as professional income.