9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1032 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) - whether the interest-bearing funds had been diverted/utilized by the assessee for making gifts to his nephews? - As argued assessee had sufficient self-owned/interest-free funds available with him - HELD THAT - We are of the considered view that as the self-owned funds available with the assessee as the opening balance of his capital on 01.04.2009, along with the net profit earned by him during the year under consideration was much higher which, therein, was sufficient to source the gifts to the aforesaid donee s, therefore, it can safely be presumed that the said self-owned funds/ profit generated during the year by the assessee was utilized for making gifts under consideration and no part of the interest-bearing funds were diverted for the said purpose. Unable to concur with the view taken disallowing claim for deduction of interest expenditure on the presumption that the interest-bearing funds were utilized by the assessee for making gifts to his nephews, and, thus, vacate the said disallowance so made/sustained by them u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Determination of whether the transactions were genuine or illusory and colorable. Summary: Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest Expenditure The assessee, engaged in the business of trading iron and steel, filed a return of income for AY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (A.O) disallowed the interest expenditure of Rs. 7,56,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the assessee diverted interest-bearing funds to his nephews under the guise of gifts and subsequently received these amounts back as unsecured loans at an interest rate of 18% per annum. The A.O. held that the transactions lacked business purpose and were aimed at reducing taxable income. Issue 2: Genuineness of Transactions The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) upheld the A.O's disallowance, labeling the transactions as "illusory, colorable, ingenuine, and not for the purpose of business." The CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee had already substantial interest-bearing loans and that the alleged gifts, followed by loans from the same individuals, were not commercially expedient. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jayesh Raichand Shah V ACIT, which held similar transactions as non-genuine and aimed at reducing tax liability. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision The ITAT observed that if the assessee had sufficient self-owned/interest-free funds, it should be presumed that the gifts were made from these funds, not borrowed ones. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., which held that if interest-free funds are sufficient to meet investments, it is presumed that investments are made from these funds. The Tribunal also referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., which supported this presumption. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient self-owned funds, including an opening balance of Rs. 37.63 lacs and a profit of Rs. 1.14 crore during the year, totaling Rs. 1.51 crore. This amount was sufficient to cover the gifts of Rs. 42 lacs. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of interest expenditure was incorrect and based on misconceived facts. The Tribunal vacated the disallowance of Rs. 7,56,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, allowing the assessee's appeal. Conclusion The ITAT allowed the appeal, concluding that the assessee had sufficient self-owned funds to make the gifts, and no part of the interest-bearing funds was diverted for non-business purposes. The disallowance of interest expenditure was vacated, and the transactions were deemed genuine.
|
