2022 (10) TMI 338 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) - Interest paid to relatives associates of the directors @18% for the last many years related to unsecured loan creditors - AO allowed 12% interest on comparing the interest rates of banks and disallowed balance interest @6% u/s 36(1)(iii), on the plea that the bank interest was lesser - HELD THAT - The assessee had not paid the amount to any non-income bearing fund. The entire amount was utilised for regular business transaction. The section 36(l)(iii) is not applicable for assessee. As Dr. in argument relied on order of the CIT(A). The addition is liable to quashed. Expenses related payment of freight was paid in cash by assessee which are disallowed under section 40A(3) - The freight is included in the bill amount and related with the purchase value. Also, the assessee submitted the certificate from Panchayat where it is clear that there is no bank for completing the banking transaction for payment to the transporter. This cash payment is covered under Rule 6DD(J) of the Income Tax Rule 1962. So, the addition u/s 40 A(3) is uncalled for. The claim was also made by the ld. AO that no deduction TDS u/s 194C of the Act related to payment of freight but the assessee has submitted the judgment of jurisdictional High Court and respectfully considering the order of Hon able High Court, the addition u/s 40A(3) is liable to be rejected. Loan by converting share application money was duly missed out from the tax audit report - The mistake was duly rectified by the CA and copy of the certificate are enclosed. Only tax audit report is not a sufficient for adjudicated the issue. The books of account is relevant for analysis the issue - DR had not made any strong objection in particular issue.In the ledger account of the assessee the balance of loan is reflected. Mere, observation of Tax Audit report is not serving the purpose. So, the addition made amount is liable to be quashed. Disallowance of 1/5 expenses of the car, scooter, motorcycle, telephone and depreciation on car which was used for director s personal expenses - There is no specific findings by both the revenue authorities. The disallowance cannot be done on the adhoc basis where the total expenses are .04% of the total turnover. CIT(A) is equally fallacious since the expenses are extremely useful for furtherance and growth of any business, leave aside the assessee's business. No worthwhile argument has been advanced by the CIT(A) as to why he has treated this expense as bogus. It has been held in a plethora of judgments that any expense that goes towards better understanding and/or management of one's business is an expense allowable u/s 37 of the Act. It has also been held that it is not for the AO to step into the shoes of a businessman and dictate to him how he should run his business. Therefore, the disallowance of expenses quashed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the CIT(A) order.
2. Addition of Rs. 3,49,750/- out of interest expense.
3. Addition of Rs. 4,16,256/- under section 40A(3).
4. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of share application money.
5. Disallowance of Rs. 32,995/- for telephone and car/scooter expenses.
6. Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) for AY 2014-15.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the CIT(A) Order:
The assessee did not press this ground during the hearing.

2. Addition of Rs. 3,49,750/- out of Interest Expense:
The AO reduced the interest rate on unsecured loans from 18% to 12%, comparing it with bank interest rates, and disallowed the balance 6% under section 36(1)(iii). The CIT(A) allowed 15% interest and disallowed 3%. The Tribunal found that the interest rate of 18% had been consistently accepted in previous assessments. The Tribunal cited judgments supporting the consistency principle and concluded that the disallowance was not justified. Therefore, the addition was quashed.

3. Addition of Rs. 4,16,256/- under Section 40A(3):
The AO disallowed cash payments for freight under section 40A(3). The assessee argued that the payments were made in a remote area without banking facilities, supported by additional evidence such as a Panchayat certificate. The Tribunal accepted the genuineness of the payments and ruled that they fell under the exception provided in Rule 6DD(j) of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal also noted that section 194C for TDS was not applicable as there was no contract. Hence, the addition was quashed.

4. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on Account of Share Application Money:
The AO added Rs. 10 lakhs as income, claiming it was not reflected in the tax audit report. The assessee provided additional evidence, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate acknowledging the error. The Tribunal emphasized that books of accounts are more reliable than the tax audit report for such matters. Since the loan was reflected in the ledger, the addition was quashed.

5. Disallowance of Rs. 32,995/- for Telephone and Car/Scooter Expenses:
The AO disallowed 1/5th of these expenses, considering them personal. The CIT(A) reduced this to 1/10th. The Tribunal found no specific defects pointed out by the revenue authorities and noted that these expenses were minimal (0.04% of sales). The Tribunal cited judgments supporting the allowance of business-related expenses under section 37 and concluded that the disallowance was unjustified. Hence, the addition was quashed.

6. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) for AY 2014-15:
The AO disallowed interest, claiming the funds were not used for business purposes. The assessee argued that the funds were advanced for purchasing goods and had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal found that the funds were used for business transactions and not for non-income bearing purposes. Therefore, section 36(1)(iii) was not applicable, and the addition was quashed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all the appeals, quashing the additions and disallowances made by the revenue authorities. The orders were pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2022.

← Previous Next →