2015 (6) TMI 393 - AT - Income Tax

Excess payment of interest to the sister concern - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The net rate charged from Kamala Associates was determined after taking into consideration all the aspects of commercial expediency, the rate difference given by Assessee were in the nature of discounts which were reduced from receipts and the net receipts were credited to Profit and Loss account and that provisions of Section 40(A(2) are applicable only in case of expenditure. We further find that ld. CIT(A) by a well reasoned and detailed order has deleted the made by A.O . Before us Revenue has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of ld CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Suppression of job charges received from sister concern - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - In the present case, we find that A.O on the basis of rate charged by Assessee to others for dyeing and printing activities done by it, had estimated the dyeing and printing charges that the Assessee should have earned from Kamala Associates, its sister concern. We find that ld. CIT(A) by a well reasoned and detailed order has deleted the made by A.O by holding that there was no provision in the Act to tax income which has not accrued and further it was not a case of Section 40A(2)(b). Before us Revenue has not placed any material on record to support its contentions or controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of excess payment of interest to sister concern.
2. Deletion of addition made under Section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act on account of excess discount allowed to sister concern.
3. Deletion of addition made under Section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act on account of suppression of charges received on account of job work charges for dyeing and printing from the sister concern.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Excess Payment of Interest to Sister Concern:
During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the Assessee had taken an unsecured loan of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- from a sister concern at an interest rate of 18% per annum, resulting in an interest payment of Rs. 36,30,267/-. The AO deemed this rate excessive compared to the market rate of 10%, disallowing Rs. 17,30,267/- as excessive interest. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, referencing a similar case from A.Y. 2003-04 where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the Assessee. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not question the genuineness of the payment but only its excessiveness. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no new material evidence from the Revenue to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings or the Tribunal's earlier decision.

2. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 40A(2)(b) on Account of Excess Discount Allowed to Sister Concern:
The AO noticed that the Assessee provided a rate difference (discount) to Kamala Associates, a sister concern, which was not extended to other parties. The AO considered this as suppression of receipts and disallowed Rs. 1,76,93,464/- under Section 40A(2)(a). The CIT(A) deleted this addition, explaining that the discount was commercially reasonable given Kamala Associates' substantial volume of job work (63% of total job work). The CIT(A) emphasized that the discount was a common business practice for large volumes and that the AO did not provide evidence that the rates charged were not market rates. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue did not present any material to counter the CIT(A)'s findings.

3. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 40A(2)(b) on Account of Suppression of Charges Received from Sister Concern:
The AO found that the Assessee charged lower rates for dyeing and printing to Kamala Associates compared to outside parties and another sister concern, Garden Silk Mills Ltd. The AO estimated the suppressed receipts at Rs. 91,75,606/- based on average rates charged to Garden Silk Mills. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, arguing that the AO's method of averaging rates was flawed and did not account for the specific nature of jobs. The CIT(A) also noted that there is no provision in the I.T. Act to tax notional income that has not accrued. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's approach was not justified and that the Revenue did not provide evidence to support its claims.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on all three grounds. The Tribunal found that the AO's additions were not supported by substantial evidence and that the CIT(A)'s detailed and reasoned orders were correct. The Tribunal emphasized that notional income cannot be taxed and that commercial expediency justified the discounts and rates charged by the Assessee. The appeal of the Revenue was thus dismissed in its entirety.

← Previous Next →