2022 (1) TMI 580 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 154 - AO allowed the deduction under section 80IC on the eligible profit of the industrial undertaking - AO invoked the provisions of section 154 and reduced the deduction under section 80IC by observing that the assessee did not charge interest on the opening balance of the capital contributed by the partners - HELD THAT - As in the preceding as well as succeeding years no such action was taken by the A.O. and the claim of the assessee was accepted for deduction under section 80IC of the Act as such this issue pertaining to the charging of interest on the credit balances of the capital of the partners was highly debatable therefore the rectification made by the A.O. under section 154 of the Act was not justified and the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly upheld the action of the A.O. On merit also the A.O. accepted the profit of the assessee eligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. He himself computed the profit at 15, 21, 957/- which was allowable as deduction under section 80IC of the Act. Therefore in the present case the whole of the profit worked out by the A.O. at 15, 21, 957/- was to be allowed as deduction under section 80IC of the Act and no addition was called for. As regards to the case law relied by the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of Plastiblends India Ltd. 2017 (10) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT is concerned it was distinguishable on facts. Since in the said case the assessee manipulated the profit by not charging the depreciation under section 32 of the Act and carry forwarded the said depreciation to be adjusted in the subsequent years. However in the present case the interest on the capital of the partners if any was not allowed to be carry forward in the subsequent years if not charged in the year under consideration. Therefore the said case law relied by the Ld. CIT(A) was on different fact. A.O. wrongly treated the income as taxable in the hands of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the A.O. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Defect in notice u/s.154
2. Allowability of deemed interest paid to partners
3. Proper opportunity of hearing not provided
4. Reduction of deduction u/s.80IC by AO
5. Disallowance of deduction u/s.80IC by AO

1. Defect in Notice u/s.154:
The appeal raised concerns regarding the notice u/s.154 being fatally defective, rendering the impugned order illegal. The argument was that the issue of allowability of deemed interest paid to partners, as per the partnership deed, was highly debatable and outside the scope of Sec.154 of the IT Act. The contention was that no interest was to be allowed to the partners as per the partnership deed, and hence, the findings of the AO were contrary to law and facts.

2. Allowability of Deemed Interest Paid to Partners:
The AO invoked Sec.154, observing that partners were entitled to interest on their capital as per the partnership deed, which had not been given. The AO calculated the interest and reduced the deduction u/s.80IC. The CIT(A) upheld this action, noting that the partnership deed did not provide for mutual consent regarding interest payment. The CIT(A) referred to a Supreme Court case where depreciation was directed to be reduced from profit, supporting the AO's decision.

3. Proper Opportunity of Hearing:
The appellant argued that no proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing had been allowed. The AO's reduction of deduction u/s.80IC was contested, stating that the issue had no tax implication, and disallowance was unwarranted.

4. Reduction of Deduction u/s.80IC by AO:
The AO reduced the deduction u/s.80IC, leading to a tax liability in the hands of the assessee firm. The appellant contended that the AO's action was incorrect and that the deduction should have been allowed on the entire assessable income, leaving no tax liability.

5. Disallowance of Deduction u/s.80IC by AO:
The AO disallowed the deduction u/s.80IC, considering the interest amount as taxable income. The appellant argued that the issue was debatable and rectification under Sec.154 was not justified. The ITAT held that the AO's treatment of the income as taxable was incorrect, and the CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's action.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the AO's reduction of the deduction u/s.80IC was unwarranted, as the issue of interest payment to partners was debatable and not subject to rectification under Sec.154. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper interpretation of partnership deeds and the necessity for clear legal provisions to support tax implications.

← Previous Next →