M/S. JENMATA TRADERS P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT-CC-7(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal agreed with both parties to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for recomputation of the total loan amount. The AO was directed to consider the factual aspects and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in trading, declared a low total income. The Assessing Officer made a significant addition by disallowing interest expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance but remanded the matter for verification of factual aspects regarding the computation of interest.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the disallowance of interest expenses. The dispute also involved the correct computation of the loan amount for interest calculation and whether advances related to the relevant assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee as against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 08.04.2021 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2014-15.
Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading in commodities and shares. The assessee e- filed its return of income on 29.11.2014 for A.Y. 2014-15 and declared total income of Rs.80,038/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished details sought for by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short). The A.O. u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 14.12.2016 assessing the total income at Rs.32,67,770/- was passed by making addition of Rs.31,87,728/- as disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act.
(A.Y. 2014-15) M/s. Jenmata Traders P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who reiterated the A.O.’s finding that the assessee did not have sufficient own fund to provide interest free advance but had remanded it back to A.O. for verification of factual aspect of computation of interest on correct amount of loan which was disputed by the assessee.
Though the assessee is in appeal before us on the disallowance of interest expenses u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act during the hearing of the appeal, the ld. AR contended that the quantum of loan for which the interest was computed was disputed before the ld. CIT(A) and having remanded back by the ld. CIT(A), the A.O. has not yet passed order pursuant to the said order. The ld. AR also stated that the loan advances of Rs.1,64,64,400/- made to ‘Shekhawati Agri Trade Pvt. Ltd.’ which does not relate to the A.Y. 2014-15 and pertains only to A.Y. 2013-14. It was further contended that there was no new loan advance given in the relevant year and only in the earlier year which the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed it to be from the own funds of the assessee to be granted as loan advance. The ld. AR stated that the ld. CIT(A) has not passed a detailed order in para 7.3.5 of the ld. CIT(A)’s order. The ld. AR also pointed out the mistake apparent on the record where the A.O. has considered the opening debit balance of Rs.1,64,64,400/- in the case of Shekhawati Agri Trade Pvt. Ltd. and opening credit balance of Rs.1,01,00,000/- in case of Shree Satyanandji Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. and alleged that it was not loan advances.
The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, did not object to restoring the appeal back to the A.O. and states that there was no ambiguity in it as it includes only factual verification.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. As both the ld. representatives have admittedly agreed to set aside the matter to the A.O. for recomputation of the total loan amount for the purpose of computing the interest for the relevant year under consideration, we hereby direct that the same may be remanded back to the ld. AO to consider the above specified factual aspect. It is needless to mention that (A.Y. 2014-15) M/s. Jenmata Traders P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT adequate opportunity of being heard shall be provided to the assessee. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2022.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shah Brothers, West Singhbhum vs ACIT/DCIT, Cen Cir-1, RanchiITA 239/RAN/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026