2019 (4) TMI 1581 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s 14A - interest and finance charges incurred on availing the loan which was diverted to other companies - HELD THAT - No substantial question of law arises and the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal with regard to deposits made by the Assessee Company with another Company viz., M/s.DSQ Holdings Limited was held to be a genuine Inter-Corporate deposits made, as the Assessee Company owed a sum to the said Company and therefore, the Assessee Company did not charge any interest on the sums advanced by it to the said Company for purchase of Shares. No exempted income in the form of Dividend was earned by the Assessee Company during the year in question. The findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal as well as the first Appellate Authority are correct findings of facts and do not give rise to any perversity in the matter. The said findings of facts are, therefore, binding on High Court under Section 260A. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed as a consequential of the said addition by the Assessing Authority which has been rightly set aside by both the Appellate Authorities. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of interest and finance charges as business expenditure.
2. Deductibility of interest and finance charges under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The Appeals were filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2002-2003. The first issue raised was whether the interest and finance charges incurred on a loan diverted to other companies are allowable as business expenditure. The Tribunal set aside the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act and the consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. The Tribunal's findings on the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act and the penalty were considered by the High Court. The Tribunal held that there was no substantial question of law as the deposits made by the Assessee Company with another Company were genuine inter-corporate deposits. The Assessee Company did not charge interest on the sums advanced for share purchase, and no exempted income in the form of Dividend was earned during the relevant year.

3. The High Court found that the findings of fact by the Tribunal and the first Appellate Authority were correct and not perverse. The Tribunal's conclusion that the deposits were genuine and no exempted income was earned was upheld. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Assessing Authority was set aside by both the Appellate Authorities as a consequence of the addition, which was deleted.

4. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Appeals filed by the Revenue, concluding that there was no merit in challenging the Tribunal's findings. The questions raised were answered against the Revenue and in favor of the Assessee. The Appeals were dismissed without costs, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the issues raised.