2017 (3) TMI 964 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest claimed u/s.57(iii) - Held that - We find that the issue of availability of fund and advancing of funds from the account of Ashok Mittal to the assessee have not been verified properly. We have admitted additional evidences that were not available to the lower authorities, but they throw light on the dispute before us. From the bank statement it is clear that at least ₹ 3 crores were advanced on behalf of Ashok Mittal. It is also a fact that Dena Bank had extended loan facility in favour of six entities. In our opinion, the AO/FAA had not deliberated upon the said issue as the assessee had not furnished the necessary details before them. Therefore,we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, matter should be restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, who would decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Effective Ground of appeal decided in favour of the assessee, in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules.
2. Disallowance of interest claimed by the assessee under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Verification of funds advanced from Ashok Mittal's account to the assessee.
4. Disallowance of interest/discounting charges in multiple assessment years.

Issue 1: Admission of Additional Evidences
The Appellate Tribunal considered the request to accept additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. The assessee produced bank account details during the hearing, which were deemed essential for deciding the appeal grounds. The Departmental Representative left the decision to the bench, and after reviewing the bank account details, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidences.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest Claimed by the Assessee
In the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed interest claimed by the assessee under section 57(iii) of the Act. The AO found discrepancies in the submissions made by the assessee regarding interest expenses. The AO concluded that the interest expenditure did not qualify for deduction under section 43B(e) read with explanation 3D of the Act. Consequently, the AO disallowed the interest amount and added it back to the assessee's income.

Issue 3: Verification of Funds Advanced from Ashok Mittal's Account
During the appeal process, the assessee argued that funds were advanced from Ashok Mittal's account, but this aspect was not adequately verified by the AO or the FAA. The Tribunal admitted additional evidences that shed light on the issue. It was revealed that at least &8377; 3 crores were advanced on behalf of Ashok Mittal, a fact not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper verification and a fair hearing for the assessee.

Issue 4: Disallowance of Interest/Discounting Charges in Multiple Assessment Years
The solitary ground of appeal in multiple assessment years pertained to the disallowance of interest/discounting charges. The Tribunal noted previous decisions where similar appeals by the AO were dismissed. Considering the precedents and the absence of legal or factual flaws in the FAA's order, the Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, partially allowing the appeal and dismissing the AO's appeals for both assessment years.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed various issues related to the admission of additional evidences, disallowance of interest claimed by the assessee, verification of funds advanced from Ashok Mittal's account, and the disallowance of interest/discounting charges in multiple assessment years, providing detailed analysis and decisions for each issue.