2022 (1) TMI 839 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of Interest portion waived under OTS - assessee has claimed that the interest portion has been added back u/s. 43B of the Act for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 - Principal portion which is part of the waiver under one time settlement, the addition has been made by AO treating the same as revenue receipt - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - A perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee show that the said amount represents loan from Heavy Financial Corporation and SBI. The said loan was taken for the purchase of fixed assets as per exhibit 117 and 118 of the paper book. Whether this waiver becomes part of taxable income u/s. 28 (iv) of the Act r.w.s. 41 (1) is concerned, this issue has been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra Mahindra 2018 (5) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT We decline to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) in so far as this issue is concerned.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Interest portion under OTS
2. Addition of Principal portion under OTS

Issue 1: Addition of Interest portion under OTS

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A) order deleting the addition of interest portion under OTS, amounting to ?5,87,82,683 out of a total of ?8,41,58,148 waived. The revenue contended that no documentary evidence was furnished during assessment proceedings to verify the claim that the interest was not actually paid. The CIT(A) deleted the addition without calling for a remand report from the AO. The revenue argued that the addition was made under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, not section 41(1). The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation that the unpaid interest had been added back under section 43B for previous years. The ITAT directed the assessee to furnish details for verification. The ITAT also noted the judgments of various High Courts on similar issues.

Issue 2: Addition of Principal portion under OTS

Regarding the addition of the Principal portion of ?2,53,75,465 under OTS, the AO treated it as a revenue receipt. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the Principal remission is taxable only if claimed as expenditure in the previous year. The ITAT found that the amount represented a loan for purchasing fixed assets, and cited the Supreme Court judgment in Mahindra & Mahindra case. The ITAT analyzed the applicability of sections 28(iv) and 41(1) of the IT Act. It concluded that the waiver of the loan did not amount to cessation of trading liability, and hence, the Principal remission was not taxable income. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A) decision and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the revenue's appeal in part for statistical purposes but upheld the CIT(A) decision on both issues after thorough analysis of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and relevant case laws.