2025 (4) TMI 138 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of notional interest purportedly earned on an unsecured interest free loan claimed by the assessee in the Income Tax Return (ITR) - HELD THAT - Considering that the assessee received an amount of Rs. 30 crores from RPTPL pursuant to the agreement for the right of pre-emption dated 26/10/2016 and that RPTPL has duly confirmed the transaction with the requisite confirmation is annexed we find that the transaction is substantiated. Furthermore the said amount was duly credited in the assessee s books of account as an interest-free loan and the assessee is not liable to pay any interest or any other charges related to this fund. AO calculated the said interest amount under Rule 3(7)(i) which is inapplicable to the assessee as the assessee is not an employee of the said party. The interest was calculated suo-moto by the AO on interest free fund received on right to pre-emption of property. The said calculation has no basis. So it is treated as unjustified. Addition made by the CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,65,20,750/- made on account of notional interest purportedly earned on an unsecured, interest-free loan claimed by the assessee in the Income Tax Return (ITR).

2. Whether the applicability of IT Rule 3(7)(i), which pertains to the valuation of perquisites, was correctly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A), or if the income should have been considered as "Income from Other Sources."

3. Whether there was an error in not considering that due opportunity was given to the assessee through a show-cause notice and a video conference, and whether the assessee was adequately asked to provide details of all unsecured loans taken during the year under consideration.

4. Whether the principle of res judicata was correctly applied by the Ld. CIT(A) in this case, considering no such addition was made in earlier or subsequent assessment years.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition for Notional Interest

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessment was made under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notional interest was calculated under Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which pertains to the valuation of perquisites for employees.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that Rule 3(7)(i) was inapplicable as the assessee was not an employee of the entity providing the loan. The rule applies to benefits arising from interest-free or concessional loans provided by an employer to an employee.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee received Rs. 30 crores from RPTPL as part of an agreement for the right of pre-emption of property, with no obligation to pay interest.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal confirmed that the transaction was substantiated and reflected in the assessee's books as an interest-free loan. Since the assessee was not an employee of RPTPL, the calculation of notional interest under Rule 3(7)(i) was deemed unjustified.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the Ld. CIT(A), agreeing that the calculation of notional interest had no basis.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO was unjustified and upheld the deletion of Rs. 2,65,20,833/- by the Ld. CIT(A).

Issue 2: Applicability of IT Rule 3(7)(i)

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 3(7)(i) relates to the valuation of perquisites for employees concerning interest-free or concessional loans.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that Rule 3(7)(i) was not applicable since the assessee was self-employed and not an employee of RPTPL.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal referenced the balance sheet and confirmation from RPTPL, which supported the nature of the transaction as an interest-free loan.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the rule could not be applied to the assessee's situation, as the rule is intended for employee-employer relationships.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's argument for applying Rule 3(7)(i) to the assessee.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the applicability of Rule 3(7)(i) by the Ld. CIT(A).

Issue 3: Due Opportunity and Procedural Fairness

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO added the notional interest without issuing a show-cause notice specifically addressing this point, which violated principles of natural justice.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the AO did not adequately notify the assessee of the proposed addition during the video conference or through the show-cause notice.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the procedural lapse by the AO warranted the deletion of the addition.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal sided with the assessee, finding that the procedural fairness was compromised.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal supported the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition due to lack of procedural fairness.

Issue 4: Application of Res Judicata

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of res judicata, while not strictly applicable to tax matters, suggests consistency in tax treatment across assessment years unless there is a change in facts or law.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that no similar additions were made in previous or subsequent years, supporting the Ld. CIT(A)'s application of the principle.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's stance in Radhasoami Satsang and BSNL cases, which advocate for consistency in tax treatment.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found no change in facts or law that would justify a different tax treatment for the year in question.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's argument against applying the principle of res judicata.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to apply the principle of res judicata.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2,65,20,833/- for notional interest, finding the calculation under Rule 3(7)(i) inapplicable.

- The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, noting the AO's failure to issue a specific show-cause notice regarding the notional interest addition.

- The Tribunal supported the application of the principle of res judicata, given the consistency in tax treatment across assessment years.

- The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.