2022 (7) TMI 442 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of travel expenses - assessee had failed to explain the purpose of the journey and that it was wholly and exclusively for business - ITAT deleted the addition - whether no nexus between the utilization of borrowed funds and business activity of the assessee provided? - HELD THAT - Both the CIT (A) and ITAT emphasised that the assessing officer had failed to provide any cogent reasoning or working, based on which such disallowances were made. Both the CIT(A) as well as ITAT have held that the assessee had carried out its business of real estate and infrastructure development during the year under consideration as it had undertaken more than nine projects and had carried inventory of Rs.53.87 crores of traded goods in the form of apartments which were ready for sale and which were sold in the subsequent years. The two authorities below have also found that the respondent-assessee had participated in joint venture projects outside India in consonance with its Memorandum of Association and there was clear connection between the money borrowed and its utilization for the purposes of business of real estate and infrastructural development. Both the appellate authorities also observed that the assessee duly demonstrated that the funds borrowed had been deployed/invested for various business projects of the assessee such as Rs.10 crores utilized for furnishing bank guarantee for bidding for lease hold rights from Rail Land Development Authority, Rs.25.50 crores for aggregation of land to develop residential/commercial complex-which is main business of the company, Rs.6.05 crore for payment of interest and other expenses, Rs.22 crores paid to AKC Developers Ltd. as equity contribution in JV of Municipal Solid Waste Project and Rs.7.35 crores to Qcell Ltd. Gambia as its contribution for Joint Venture of IT enabled services etc. This Court is of the view that the appellant, by way of the present appeal, seeks interference with finding of facts arrived at by the CIT(A) and ITAT by asking this Court to re-appreciate the evidence. In State of Haryana Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited Ors., ( 1990 (8) TMI 416 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court has held that the High Court would not be justified in law in reversing in second appeal, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts below. This Court is further of the opinion that the impugned order calls for no interference as it suffers from no perversity. No substantial questions of law arise in this matter. Accordingly, the present appeal and application are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the ITAT order regarding disallowance of travel expenses.
2. Challenge to the ITAT order regarding disallowance of loan interest expenses.
3. Interference with findings of fact by CIT(A) and ITAT.
4. Applicability of concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant challenged the ITAT order regarding the disallowance of travel expenses. The counsel argued that the ITAT erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer without proper justification. However, upon review, it was found that both the CIT(A) and ITAT had given concurrent findings that the assessee had provided details regarding the purpose of travel and employees involved. The authorities emphasized that the assessing officer had failed to provide a valid basis for the disallowances made.

Issue 2: The appellant also contested the ITAT order regarding the disallowance of loan interest expenses. The counsel argued that there was no nexus between the borrowed funds and the business activities of the assessee. However, both the CIT(A) and ITAT found that there was a clear connection between the borrowed funds and their utilization for real estate and infrastructure development projects. The authorities noted various instances where the funds were deployed for business purposes, such as bank guarantees, land aggregation, and equity contributions in joint ventures.

Issue 3: The appellant sought interference with the findings of fact by CIT(A) and ITAT, asking the court to re-evaluate the evidence. However, the court cited the principle established in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., stating that the High Court should not reverse concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts in a second appeal. The court concluded that the impugned order did not warrant interference as it was not perverse, and no substantial questions of law arose in the matter.

Issue 4: The court upheld the applicability of concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities, emphasizing that there was no justification for the High Court to reverse such findings in a second appeal. The court dismissed the appeal and application, stating that the impugned order did not suffer from any perversity.