2022 (8) TMI 1014 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT - CIT(A) deleted the addition in cases where the concerned parties had confirmed the transaction and the loan amount also matched. In other cases where there was a difference of the amount confirmed by the concerned parties as against the loan amount declared by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) added the difference. In case where there was no reply or notice could not be issued for want of address etc., the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. After reconciliation of the entire figures, out of the total loan amount Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of and deleted the addition of the remaining amount as the same being confirmed by the concerned parties in the independent inquiries conducted by the Ld. AO by way of issuing summons u/s 133(6) of the Act. It is pertinent to note here, in some cases Ld. A/R had furnished the PAN, address of the parties at a later stage in the rejoinder to the remand report which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee has not filed any appeal against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. D/R could not point out any defect or error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) warranting our interference in this respect. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld on this issue. Disallowance out of interest expenditure on loan amount - CIT(A) has deleted the proportionate interest up to the extent the addition on account of the loan amount has been deleted - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has recomputed the interest on the addition confirmed at Rs. 3,22,73,728/- in respect of loan amount and accordingly restricted addition on account of interest to Rs. 5,69,693/-. There is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in this respect also. Ad hoc disallowance made out of the business loss claim - CIT-A deleted addition - HELD THAT - CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed that the Ld. AO had made the aforesaid ad hoc disallowance only on estimation basis without giving any reasoning in this respect. The Ld. CIT(A) has further noted that the disallowance has been made just on mere presumption only that there was neither material nor reason nor rational for the Ld. AO to make the aforesaid disallowance. He further noted that even the accounts of the assessee have been audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act. He, therefore, deleted the disallowance so made by the Ld. AO. After hearing the Ld. representative of both the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act of interest expenditure - CIT-A restricted addition - HELD THAT - AO had made the disallowance of entire interest expenditure whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance as per the working given by the assessee as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for computing the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue also.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
2. Disallowance of interest expenditure.
3. Deletion of disallowance of business loss.
4. Restriction of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Unsecured Loan as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68:

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had taken an unsecured loan of Rs. 50,92,49,136/-. The assessee failed to produce the books of account and other details due to the office being under police seal. Consequently, the AO framed the assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and added Rs. 4,46,42,611/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.

On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] called for a remand report from the AO. Notices under Section 133(6) were issued to the loan creditors, and responses were received from some. The CIT(A) deleted the addition where loan transactions were confirmed and matched the amounts. For discrepancies, the CIT(A) added the difference, and for non-responding creditors, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,22,73,782/- and deleted Rs. 1,23,68,883/-. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no defect or error warranting interference.

2. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure:

The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s deletion of proportionate interest expenditure. The CIT(A) recomputed the interest on the confirmed loan addition of Rs. 3,22,73,728/- and restricted the interest disallowance to Rs. 5,69,693/-. The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it.

3. Deletion of Disallowance of Business Loss:

The AO made an ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- of business loss claimed by the assessee, citing the absence of books of account and documents. The CIT(A) observed that the disallowance was made on estimation without reasoning and noted that the assessee's accounts were audited under Section 44AB. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, and the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

4. Restriction of Disallowance under Section 14A:

The AO disallowed Rs. 1,06,03,866/- as interest expenditure under Section 14A. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 15,41,200/- based on the assessee's calculation as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it.

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit in the grounds raised. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld on all issues. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2022.