2012 (11) TMI 286 - AT - Income Tax

Interest on advances - disallowance - Held that - As own funds of the assessee as on 31.03.2005 was of Rs.254.25 lacs as per the audited balance sheet submitted and hence, the entire such advance were given out of interest free own funds and, therefore, disallowance of interest in respect of these three interest free advances is not justified - in favour of assessee. Incremental salary - disallowance being 50% - Held that - A clear finding is given by CIT(A) that the assessee has not discharged its onus as no justifiable reason could be explained on such a sharp rise of almost 75% in salary hence, 50% of increase in salary disallowed by the A.O. is justified - against assessee. Disallowance of depreciation - Held that - Assessee has not furnished the purchase bills in respect of the assets on which depreciation is claimed by it. As the assessee could not establish both of these aspects that it owned the asset in question which was used by it for its business purpose disallowance of depreciation is warranted - against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest proportionate to advances given for non-business purpose.
2. Disallowance of incremental salary paid to staff members.
3. Disallowance of depreciation in relation to computer systems purchased.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Disallowance of Interest on Advances:
The appellant contested the disallowance of interest on advances given to individuals for non-business purposes. The appellant argued that the advances were made from interest-free own funds, thus justifying the non-applicability of interest disallowance. Citing a tribunal decision, the appellant emphasized that the advances were fully covered by interest-free capital available with the appellant. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the interest-free advances were adequately supported by the appellant's interest-free funds, leading to the deletion of the disallowance. Therefore, the tribunal allowed this ground of the appeal.

Issue 2 - Disallowance of Incremental Salary:
The appellant challenged the disallowance of 50% of the incremental salary paid to staff members, arguing that the increase was justified due to enhanced profits. However, the authorities found that the appellant failed to provide necessary details to substantiate the sharp rise in salary, especially considering the significant increase of almost 75% over the previous year. The appellate authority upheld the disallowance, emphasizing that the onus to establish the genuineness and business purpose of the expense rested solely on the appellant. As the appellant could not justify the substantial increase adequately, the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the appellate authority's decision, thereby rejecting this ground of appeal.

Issue 3 - Disallowance of Depreciation on Computer Systems:
Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on computer systems purchased during the year, the appellant reiterated arguments made before the appellate authority. However, the tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide purchase bills in its name for the assets claimed for depreciation. Without evidence proving ownership of the assets used for business purposes, the tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the assessing officer. Consequently, the tribunal found no grounds to overturn the appellate authority's decision on this issue, leading to the rejection of this ground of appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal, specifically in the context of the disallowance of interest on advances, while rejecting the challenges related to the incremental salary disallowance and depreciation on computer systems.