KAMAL PARKASH GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1354/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 March 2021AY 2016-175 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that when an assessee is engaged in the continuous activity of taking and giving loans, and has earned net positive interest income, establishing a one-to-one nexus for each transaction is not necessary. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was ordered to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction for interest expenditure against interest income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating a lack of direct nexus between the interest paid and interest earned. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether interest expenditure can be disallowed for lack of a direct one-to-one nexus with interest income when the assessee is engaged in a continuous business of lending and borrowing?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 1356/CHD/2019
ITA No. 1354/CHD/2019
ITA No. 1355/CHD/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश/Order

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeals have been preferred by different but related assessees against the orders dated 19.09.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

Since the issue involved in all these appeals are identical, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The common issue involved in these appeals is related to the disallowances of deduction claimed by the assessees on account of interest expenditure claimed against interest income.

2.

For the sake of convinces have been taken from in case of Shri Anil Kumar Goyal. The assessee received total interest income aggregating to Rs. 51,23,856/- for the year under consideration on unsecured loans advanced by him and interest on saving/fixed deposit account. Simultaneously, the assessee paid interest of Rs. 34,52,984/- during the F.Y. 2015-16 on the unsecured loans taken by him from different parties. In addition, the assessee has also paid interest for Rs. 13,40,951/- on loan against property from Axis Bank Ltd. Thus, total interest paid by the assessee to 1356-Chd-2019 Kamal Parkash Goyal & Ors, Ludhiana 3 during the F.Y. 2015-16was Rs. 47,93,935/- (Rs.34,52,984/- plus Rs.

13,40,951/-). However, the Ld. AO made complete disallowance of the interest paid of Rs. 47,93,935/- which was claimed by the assessee as deduction U/s 57(iii) of the Act against interest income of Rs. 51,23,856/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenses of Rs. 47,93,935/- for the reason that the assessee failed to prove direct nexus between the interest expenditure and interest income.

3.

In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowances so made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has thus come in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard rival contentions and perused material available on record. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is in the activity of taking and giving loan on interest. The assessee during the year had loan from certain parties and advanced unsecured loans to other parties and yielded net positive interest income. That this activity of the assessee has been continued since many years. The lower authorities, accepting the said activity of the assessee have never made any addition on this issue in the earlier assessment years as well as in the subsequent year except the assessment year under consideration.

The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that though, some part of the loans amounting to Rs. 13,40,951/- was taken from Bank against security of property given to the Bank, which was received at a lower rate of interest, whereas, the assessee had advanced loan on higher rate to 1356-Chd-2019 Kamal Parkash Goyal & Ors, Ludhiana 4 of interest and earned interest income. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that the lower authorities have not disputed the genuineness of the activity of advancement of loan and taking of loan by the assessee from different parties. The only issues on which the deduction has been disallowed is that the assessee has not established one to one nexus between the loan taken and loan advanced. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that though the assessee has sufficient own funds also but that does not mean that the presumption will be that the interest yielded loans were advanced by the assessee from own funds. That there is no allegation of the Department that the interest bearing funds have been used by the assessee for some other purposes.

5.

The Ld. D/R has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.

6.

We have considered the rival contents. The assessee has demonstrated from the record that the activity of the assessee of taking interest bearing loan and making advances to other parties is continued for the last so many years. The assessee in this activity has earned net positive interest income. In our view in such a case, there is no need to establish one to one nexus between each of the transaction of loan taken and loan advanced by the assessee. There transactions of taking unsecured loans otherwise has not been disputed by the Department.

Even the Assessing Officer has not made any effort to verify the genuineness of the transaction by summoning the concerned parties either who have advanced loan to assessee or the parties have taken loan to 1356-Chd-2019 Kamal Parkash Goyal & Ors, Ludhiana 5 from the assessee. There is no allegation that the assessee has used the interest bearing funds for some other purposes. Under the circumstances, in our view, the assessee is entitled to set off the interest expenditure against the interest income earned by the assessee and the net of the same has rightly been offered by the assessee for taxation. In view of above discussion, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is ordered to be deleted. The ld. Representative parties have submitted that the facts and issues involved in all the captioned appeals the identical. In view of our findings given above, the addition made by the lower authorities in all these three appeals is ordered to be deleted. In the result, all these three appeals are hereby allowed.

Order pronounced on 11/03/2021

More judgments on Section 57(iii)

All 716 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →