ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI vs. N.S.SOFTWARE, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5369/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 August 2022AY 2015-165 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It applied the rule of consistency, noting that similar disallowances in prior years were deleted and that the Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang supports maintaining a consistent view when facts and law remain unchanged.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a portion of the interest paid by the assessee on secured loans, arguing that interest-bearing funds were advanced to partners without charging interest. The assessee contended that similar situations in previous years did not result in disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether proportionate disallowance of interest is justified when interest-bearing funds are advanced to partners without interest. Whether the rule of consistency applies to the present assessment year based on previous years' treatment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. YOGESH KUMAR US

Hearing: 04/08/2022Pronounced: 08/08/2022

Appellant Sh. Amit Shukla, SR. DR. Respondent Sh. Sudesh Garg, Advocate Sh. Sahil Agarwal, CA Date of hearing: 04/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 08/08/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-36, New Delhi dated 03.04.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2015-16.

2.

The solitary grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of interest paid amounting to Rs.51616215/-.

3.

Representatives were heard at length. Having heard the representatives we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below.

4.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has debited Rs.70504114/- on account of interest paid to the bank against the secured loan of Rs.60,20,05,378/-. The AO further noticed that out of total borrowed fund the assessee firm has given advances to the partners of the firm amounting to Rs.44,07,29,445/- without charging any interest.

5.

The assessee was asked to show caused why the interest debited to the P & L account may not be proportionately diallowed as the interest bearing loan has been diverted to non interest bearing advances.

6.

In its reply the assessee stated that similar situation arose in A.Y.2005-06 to 2011-12 where the assessment was completed after thorough scrutiny and no such disallowance was proposed / made by the AO. It was explained that the loan was borrowed for business purposes and there is no adverse finding given in earlier assessment years.

7.

The contention of the assessee did not find favour with the AO who proceeded by computing proportionate disallowance and made addition of Rs.5,16,16,215/-.

8.

Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and reiterated its contention. It was also brought to the notice of the CIT(A) that inspite of specific clause in the partnership deed, the assessee firm is not paying any interest on the credit balance of capital amounting to Rs.250.84 crores to its partners. After considering the facts and the submissions the CIT(A) held as under :-

9.

We find that the loan was taken by the assessee in A.Y.2007-08 and its paying interest since then and claiming the same as expenditure. We find that the returns for A.Y.2007-08 to 2011-12 were selected for scrutiny assessment and no disallowances on account of interest claimed by the assessee were made.

10.

The disallowance was made for the first time in A.Y.2012-13 which was deleted by the CIT(A) and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld by this Tribunal in order dated 17.01.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 has held that if the facts are the same and the law has not changed than the consistent view has to be taken as in earlier assessment years. 11. On facts of the case in hand, rule of consistency squarely apply and, therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.08.2022.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →