2013 (9) TMI 377 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest - Disallowance of ex gartia interest - CIT(A) made an observation that the claim made under ex-gratia may not be covered under section 43B - However, confirmed the disallowance on the ground that the same was not paid before the due date for furnishing the return - Held that - CIT(A) having held that ex-gratia is not covered by section 43B, is not justified in upholding the disallowance relying on the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mettur Chemicals & Industrial Corporation Ltd. (1998 (3) TMI 69 - MADRAS High Court) as the amount of ex-gratia cannot be regarded as bonus and requirements of section 37 are fully satisfied - Decided in favour of Revenue. Disallowance of interest - Diversion of funds - Held that - issue should be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify whether the investments made by the assessee is out of its own funds or from the borrowed funds. In case the investments are found to have been made from out of non-interest bearing own funds, there is no justification for any disallowance of interest in relation to such investment. Only in case it is found that the assessee does not have non-interest bearing funds of its own, disallowance out of interest claimed has to be worked out and made accordingly. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-decide the issue in the light of our above observations and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of ex-gratia payment.
2. Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds used for investments.
3. Appeal against the consequential order regarding the rate of interest applied.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of ex-gratia payment:
The assessee company, engaged in the manufacture of plain and laminated particle boards and consultancy, had debited an amount of Rs.4,70,617/- towards ex-gratia, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) as it was not paid before the due date for filing the return. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance despite acknowledging that ex-gratia is not covered under section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that since the ex-gratia is not regarded as a bonus and the requirements of section 37 are satisfied, the disallowance was unjustified and thus deleted the addition.

2. Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds used for investments:
The AO disallowed the interest of Rs.64,82,223/- on the grounds that borrowed funds were used for investments in shares of various companies. The AO noted that the assessee had a debit balance in its bank accounts at the time of making these investments, indicating the use of borrowed funds. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. The assessee contended that the investments were made from internal accruals, sale of old investments, and interest-free loans, not from borrowed funds. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to verify the assessee's claims regarding the source of funds used for investments, directing the AO to decide the issue in accordance with the law after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

3. Appeal against the consequential order regarding the rate of interest applied:
For the A.Y. 2006-2007, the AO observed significant investments and secured loans, leading to the disallowance of interest on the grounds of using interest-bearing funds for investments. The CIT(A) directed the AO to disallow interest only to the extent attributable to interest-free investments. The AO, in a consequential order, applied an 18% interest rate, which the assessee contested, arguing that the actual rate was 8.16%. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee and directed the interest rate to be adjusted to 8.16%. The Tribunal found that the issue should be remitted back to the AO to verify whether the investments were made from the assessee's own funds or borrowed funds, and to disallow interest only if borrowed funds were used. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue against the consequential order was dismissed as infructuous.

Separate Judgments:
The Tribunal's decision was consistent across the issues, remitting the matters back to the AO for verification and proper adjudication based on the evidence and legal provisions, ensuring that the assessee is given a fair opportunity to present its case. The appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.