2023 (9) TMI 375 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) - advance given by the assessee to SIL and the assessee holding substantial amount of the shareholding in that company - company to whom the money is advance in BIFR - HELD THAT - There is no discussion in the order of the lower authority that the assessee till 31.03.2000 regular in charging the interest and has stopped because of the fact that the recovery of further interest becomes doubtful from 01.04.2000 on account of the fact that the company SIL become sick and therefore, we see no reason not to consider the plea of the assessee that when the interest is not received no disallowance can be made. Even the ld. AO through ld. DR at the time of hearing also did not controvert the fact the assessee is having sufficient balance which is interest free as on 31.03.2044 at Rs. 3,25,70,408/- as against the SIL debit balance of Rs. 1,22,45,671.90 and in fact that the assessee earlier charging interest and has stopped on account of the reason that the company becomes Sick and even the recovery of the principle amount in doubt how revenue can tax disallow the claim of interest to the extent of the advance of SIL as notional interest and that too on historic advance given in earlier years. As the advance given by the assessee to SIL which was for business purpose and the assessee holding substantial amount of the share holding in that company the disallowance of interest considering the direction of the bench that the assessee is having sufficient fund which are interest free and therefore, we vacate the disallowance - Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

Condonation of Delay:
At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee's representative filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining that the delay was due to an erroneous calculation of the filing deadline and professional engagements. The Revenue did not object to the application. The Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, condoned the delay, admitting the appeal for hearing on merits.

Disallowance of Interest:
The primary issue in the appeal was the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 13,23,694/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment disallowed Rs. 16,33,869/- as interest, which was reduced to Rs. 13,23,694/- by the Assessing Officer (AO) after considering the net profit of Rs. 51.70 lakhs and calculating an average value for interest computation. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, agreeing with the AO's rationale that depreciation, though not an actual expenditure, is an outflow of funds as per Income Tax norms.

The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) failed to fully appreciate the directions given by the ITAT in the first round of litigation, which required examining whether the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances made to Synco Industries Limited (SIL), a sick company. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed stopped charging interest from 01.04.2000 due to SIL's financial condition and had sufficient interest-free funds as on 31.03.2004.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal held that the advance to SIL was for business purposes and that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal vacated the disallowance of Rs. 13,23,694/- and allowed the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the disallowance of interest was vacated. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining the availability of interest-free funds and the business purpose behind the advances, aligning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in relevant cases.