2001 (6) TMI 165 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of Rs. 1,38,492 out of total addition of Rs. 1,74,123 on account of non-charging of interest from certain parties.
2. Non-charging of interest on debit balances of partners resulting in an addition of Rs. 9,083.
3. Relief granted by the CIT(A) contested by the Revenue.

Summary:

Issue 1: Confirmation of Rs. 1,38,492 out of total addition of Rs. 1,74,123 on account of non-charging of interest from certain parties

The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in financing, did not charge interest on loans/advances to Torrent Investment (P) Ltd. and Shri Kumar V. Parikh. The AO disallowed interest at the rate of 12% amounting to Rs. 1,74,123, citing that the business of the assessee is financing and non-charging of interest affects the correct computation of income. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's decision, confirming an addition of Rs. 1,38,492 after adjusting for interest-free loans received by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and correct the figures, emphasizing that interest-free funds available should be considered in totality, including owner's capital, accumulated profits, and other interest-free creditors and loans.

Issue 2: Non-charging of interest on debit balances of partners resulting in an addition of Rs. 9,083

The AO added Rs. 9,083 for non-charging of interest on debit balances of partners, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the assessee's contention regarding the nexus between borrowed funds and advances was not substantiated. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including those of the Madras High Court and Bombay High Court, which support the disallowance of interest when borrowed funds are diverted for non-business purposes.

Issue 3: Relief granted by the CIT(A) contested by the Revenue

The Revenue's appeal against the relief granted by the CIT(A) was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view that borrowed funds were partly diverted for non-business purposes, but also considered the availability of interest-free funds. The Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds, if any, in accordance with the observations and provisions of the IT Act.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision with modifications, directing the AO to recalculate the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.