COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHOPAL vs. BHASKAR FOODS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/113/2014HC Madhya PradeshMPHC01046522201410 September 20153 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The Court found that the concurrent orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were based on a due appreciation of the facts and material on record. Both appellate authorities had concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that interest-bearing funds were utilized for providing interest-free advances. Consequently, they held that there was no justification for making a disallowance of interest expenses on a presumptive basis. The High Court affirmed the deletion of the disallowance by the lower authorities and saw no reason to interfere with their concurrent findings.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the concurrent orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessment year in question is 2010-11. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee, Bhaskar Foods Pvt. Ltd., had shown Rs. 17,88,70,571/- under the head loans and advances. After issuing a questionnaire and considering the material provided, the AO disallowed Rs. 27,02,55,133/- of the interest expenses debited in the profit and loss account. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted a disallowance of Rs. 83,24,881/-, and the Tribunal affirmed this deletion, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal, warranting interference by the High Court, concerning the deletion of disallowance of interest expenses claimed by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the appellate authorities (CIT(A) and Tribunal) correctly deleted the disallowance because there was no evidence on record to suggest that interest-bearing funds were utilized for providing interest-free advances to other group concerns. Therefore, no disallowance was justified on a presumptive basis. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the disallowance made by the AO was justified and that the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were erroneous. The Revenue challenged the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 83,24,881/-.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 143(2),Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR

Income Tax Appeal No.113 of 2014

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal

Vs.

Bhaskar Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Present : Hon. Shri Justice Rajendra Menon Hon. Shri Justice S.K.Seth

Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for appellant.

Whether approved for reporting:

Yes/No.

J U D G M E N T (10.9.2015)

This is revenue’s appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, calling in question the concurrent orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the matter of permitting deletion of certain amounts on account of the fact that they were interest bearing term loan advance.

2.

During the assessment year 2010-11 notices under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the respondent/assesse and during the process of assessment it was found that a sum of Rs.17,88,70,571/- was shown under

the head loans and advances. A questionnaire was issued to the assesse, he was required to furnish details of the advances and deposits in a prescribed format. After considering the material adduced the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.27,02,55,133/- out of total interest expenses and debited in profit and loss account and passed the assessment order. The aforesaid disallowance of Rs.83,24,881/- having been deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, challenging the concurrent finding recorded by the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal by the revenue.

3.

On going through the order passed by the appellate authorities namely the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, the reasons indicated by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we find that both these authorities have found that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the interest bearing funds were utilized for providing interest free advances. Accordingly it was held there was no question of making disallowance on the total closing balance of advance given after observing so the disallowance was deleted :- “From the above, it was clear that in this case there has no evidence on record to suggest that interest bearing funds were utilized for giving interest free advances to other group concerns. Hence, there was no justification for making disallowance of interest @ 12% on the total closing balance of advances given at Rs.8,70,66,549/- by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and legal position on the issue, I am of the considered opinion that no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) out of interest expenses claimed by the appellant was called for, as there was no evidence/material on record to demonstrate that interest bearing funds were utilized for giving interest free advances to other group concerns. Thus, the disallowance of Rs.1,04,47,986/- out of interest

claimed is deleted.

If the totality of facts available on record, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, observation made in the assessment order are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, first of all, the factual finding recorded in the impugned order was not controverted by the Revenue with the help of any positive material. Secondly, no evidence was brought on record that interest bearing funds were utilized for providing interest free advances. Therefore, there is no justification for making the disallowances on presumptive basis. The stand of the ld. CIT(A) is affirmed.“

4.

When the matter went to the Tribunal, the Tribunal again examined the same and refused to interfere. The concurrent orders passed by the authorities concerned are based on due appreciation of facts and material that have come on record and we see no substantial question of law involved in this appeal warranting interference by this Court.

5.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) (S.K.SETH) JUDGE JUDGE M

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →