9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 227 - AT - Income TaxFinancial charges disallowance - allowable business expenses or not? - HELD THAT - Case file suggests that the instant issue of the assessee being treated as mere name lender for its group concern is no more res integra. This tribunal s co-ordinate bench s decision 2017 (7) TMI 33 - ITAT HYDERABAD has dealt the financial charges are utilised for the purpose of business only. We are prima-facie satisfied that the financial charges cannot be disallowed. However, AO has not given any finding whether the funds are really diverted to sister concerns, out of the funds availed due to discounting of bills. There is no distinction on facts forthcoming in the case file. We thus follow the judicial consistency in these facts and circumstances and uphold the CIT(A) s order deleting financial charges disallowance.Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Disallowance of financial charges of ?5,05,73,510/- by the Assessing Officer. 3. The nature of financial charges and their purpose. 4. Consistency with previous judgments and orders. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: At the outset, the Revenue's appeal suffered from a delay of 142 days, which was attributed to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Visakhapatnam, holding additional charge of PCIT-1, Hyderabad. The delay was claimed to be inadvertent due to work pressure. The assessee did not dispute these averments. Consequently, the delay was condoned in the larger interest of justice and considering the circumstances beyond the Revenue's control. 2. Disallowance of Financial Charges of ?5,05,73,510/-: The Revenue raised substantive grounds challenging the deletion of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of financial charges claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had observed that the assessee incurred financial charges for arranging finance to associate enterprises through accommodation bills for purchases and sales to group concerns, subsequently discounting the same, and not for the business purposes of the assessee. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition, which the Revenue contested. 3. Nature of Financial Charges and Their Purpose: During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee made significant purchases and sales, with financial charges primarily towards bill discounting and corresponding interest paid to banks. The Assessing Officer concluded that these charges were not for the business purpose of the assessee but for providing finance to group companies. The CIT(A), however, found that the financial charges were incurred exclusively for the purpose of trading activity and not for any unrelated activity. The assessee provided detailed documentation, including annual reports, tax audit reports, and ledger accounts, to support the claim that the financial charges were legitimate business expenses. 4. Consistency with Previous Judgments and Orders: The CIT(A) and the assessee cited previous judgments, including the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own group case of M/s. Global Forgings Ltd for A.Y. 2010-11, where the disallowance of financial charges was deleted. The CIT(A) followed these precedents and allowed the claim. The ITAT, in its detailed consideration, noted that the issue of the assessee being treated as a mere name lender for its group concerns was no longer res integra. The tribunal referred to its own co-ordinate bench's decision, which dealt with similar disallowances in earlier assessment years and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. The tribunal emphasized that financial charges arising from bill discounting were part of the business expenditure and should not be disallowed unless it was established that funds were diverted for non-business purposes. Final Judgment: The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the financial charges disallowance, noting that the Assessing Officer's consequential computation in a previous assessment year had accepted the assessee's identical financial charges claim. The tribunal followed judicial consistency and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 4th February, 2021.
|
