2022 (1) TMI 1036 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT - The investment in this entity was for business purposes only. The other entity was also engaged in similar line of business i.e. civil construction and sale of flats. Therefore, in our considered opinion, these investments were out of commercial expediency and the ratio of decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. 2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT was applicable wherein it was held that once it was established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purposes of business, which need not be the business of the assessee, deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) was to be allowed. The ratio of decision in CIT Vs. Hotel Savera 1997 (11) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT is applicable to the facts of the case wherein it was held that in case own funds and borrowed funds were inextricably mixed up in such a way that it was impossible to delineate which funds were advanced to group concern, no interference could be made in the Tribunal's finding that no disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) would be called for. Deriving strength from these decisions, we delete the impugned disallowance as sustained by learned first appellate authority. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) for Assessment Year 2016-17.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the interest disallowance by arguing that the borrowed funds were for specific purposes only, and own funds were adequate for advancing to group entities. The appellant also highlighted that only a portion of the loan was granted during the year in question, questioning the justification for the disallowance. The respondent countered by emphasizing the necessity for the assessee to demonstrate the availability of interest-free funds when advancing loans to group concerns.

2. The assessee, a resident individual engaged in civil construction business, debited interest/processing fees on an overdraft limit. Additionally, interest-free loans were extended to two entities where the assessee held positions. The Assessing Officer calculated interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) based on these transactions. Despite the assessee's claim that the loans were provided from own funds, the mixed nature of funds led to the disallowance of expenditure in full by the Assessing Officer.

3. In the appellate stage, the assessee clarified that the interest payments were made from overdraft accounts utilized for business purposes, supported by inflow and outflow statements. The necessity of investments in the entities for operational purposes was argued, along with the commercial expediency of the transactions. The Capital balance and lack of free reserves were cited by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to uphold the disallowance of a specific interest component. However, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the nexus between borrowed funds and investments made, as well as the commercial expediency aspect.

4. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the assessee's financial statements, demonstrating substantial own capital and interest-free advances. The Tribunal noted the mix of funds used by the assessee but stressed the importance of establishing a clear nexus between borrowed funds and investments. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the investments were made out of commercial expediency, leading to the deletion of the disallowance upheld by the lower authorities.

5. In alignment with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Madras, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the disallowance of the interest component. The judgment highlighted the necessity of establishing a connection between expenditure and business purposes, ultimately leading to the deletion of the disallowance amounting to ?10.72 Lacs.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.