2021 (8) TMI 742 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - disallowance of its claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) - Tribunal despite observing all had however, set-aside the issue to the file of the A.O with a direction to the assessee to establish that it had at the relevant point of time sufficient funds available with it to justify the capital advances/investments made qua the properties in question - HELD THAT - Tribunal after exhaustive deliberations had formed a view that the matter as regards sustaining of the assessee s claim for deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, in all fairness, required to be revisited by the A.O for verifying the availability of the self-owned funds with the assessee, therefore, for the said reason it had restored the matter to his file with specific directions - the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal could not be held to be suffering from a mistake apparent from record which would render it amenable for rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254 of the Act, for the reason, that the assessee holds a conviction that the same ought not to have been restored, but should have been adjudicated by the Tribunal. At this stage, we may herein clarify, that in case if the adjudication of the assessee s claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the interest expenditure could have been possible on the basis of the facts borne from the record, then, the same would not have been restored by the Tribunal but would have been adjudicated. As regards the claim of the ld. A.R that the Chart reflecting the availability of self-generated funds vis- -vis borrowed funds that was furnished by the assessee before the DRP, and was reproduced in its order, ought to have been summarily acted upon and accepted by the tribunal for adjudicating the issue, we are afraid is too wide a proposition to be accepted. As the facts claimed by the assessee in the Chart that was filed before the DRP not only required verification, but also had to be looked into in context of the relevant point of time of availability of such funds, therefore, the same could not have been acted upon on the very face of it for adjudicating the issue in hand. Be that as it may, we are of a strong conviction that the assessee by filing the present application under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254 of the Act is as a matter of fact seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal, which we are afraid is beyond the scope and gamut of the powers vested with the Tribunal. Accordingly, not finding favor with the aforesaid application filed by the assessee, we herein dismiss the same.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of order passed by Tribunal regarding deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The assessee filed a miscellaneous application claiming rectification of the Tribunal's order regarding the disallowance of its claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal, in its order, observed that the assessee had made capital advances/investments before raising interest-bearing loans, potentially justifying the deduction. However, the Tribunal directed the matter back to the Assessing Officer (A.O) to verify the availability of sufficient funds to support the capital advances/investments. The assessee argued that it had already provided details of its own funds and borrowed funds to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which were not considered by the Tribunal. The Authorized Representative (A.R) contended that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the issue without considering the evidence of sufficient interest-free funds provided by the assessee.

2. The Departmental Representative (D.R) opposed the assessee's application, stating that the Tribunal's decision to refer the matter back to the A.O for verification was appropriate. The D.R highlighted that the issue required factual verification regarding the availability of interest-free funds at the relevant time. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both parties and reviewing the order passed in the appeal, concluded that the matter required further verification by the A.O to ascertain the availability of self-owned funds with the assessee. The Tribunal found that the facts necessary for adjudication were not readily available in the record, justifying the decision to remand the matter to the A.O for specific directions.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the application filed by the assessee seeking a review of the order was beyond the scope of rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254 of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's application, stating that it was seeking a review of the order, which was not within the Tribunal's powers. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld its decision to remand the matter to the A.O for further verification and dismissed the assessee's application for rectification.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the final decision regarding the rectification of the order passed by the Tribunal in relation to the deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.