BHARATHI JAGDISH BOLOOR,MANGALURU vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1) AND TPS MANGALORE , MANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the peculiar financial circumstances of the company and the assessees. Considering the ground that necessary documents could not be filed due to reasons beyond their control, the Tribunal granted an opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessees, directors of a company, took personal loans to infuse funds into the company facing financial difficulties and claimed interest as a deduction. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated reimbursements as salary and disallowed interest expenses, initiating penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) confirmed most additions but allowed interest expenditure.
What were the issues?
Whether reimbursement of expenses and interest paid on loans infused into a financially distressed company can be treated as salary and disallowed respectively, and if penalty proceedings are justified without proper opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 201(1A),Section 57,Section 10(14),Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
These are the appeals filed by the assessee and her husband challenging the orders of the NFAC, Delhi. The assessee wife challenged the orders dated 08/12/2023 and 01/03/2024 in respect of the A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2016-17. The assessee husband challenged the orders dated to 12/Bang/2025 20/10/2023 and 11/03/2024 in respect of A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively.
Since the issue involved are common in all the appeals, the ground. raised by the assessee in is extracted below and the decision arrived shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals filed by the assessees. to 12/Bang/2025 3. The brief facts of the case are that both the assessees are Directors of M/s. Yojaka India (P) Ltd. and filed their return of income. Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s. 147 and notice u/s. 148 was issued for which the assessee filed their return of income on 23/09/2019. Thereafter, the AO had furnished the copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. During the assessment proceedings, several details were called for by the AO for which the assessee had furnished some details. The AO proposed to disallow the reimbursement of expenses and proposed to disallow the uniform allowance, medical allowance, etc. The AO also not allowed the deduction on the payment of interest paid on by them on the loans borrowed from the banks and given to the company for carrying out the business activities. The assessees submitted that the company became sick and financially they were not able to carry on the business since the banks had initiated proceedings to attach the assets of the company for the non-payment of the dues. Therefore the assessees to help the company, obtained loan and infused the same into the company. The assessee claimed the said payment of interest as deduction but the AO had disallowed the same since the complete details were not made available to the AO. The AO concluded the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.
As against the said orders, the assessees filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the expenses claimed by the assessees are allowable expenditure. Further, the assessees contended that the reimbursement of expenses could not form part of the salary. Similarly, the assessees contended that the interest expenses could not be treated as salary income to the Directors and explained the circumstances under which the interest expenses were claimed.
At the time of hearing, the assessee also filed one written submissions on 07/09/2023. Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) had again issued a notice on 25/10/2023 requesting the assessee to avail the personal hearing. The assessee had not responded to the notice dated 25/10/2023 and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had decided the appeals based on the written submissions to 12/Bang/2025 filed by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) had considered the grounds separately and confirmed most of the grounds but allowed the interest expenditure as not liable to be added as income. As against the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessees are in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessees had responded to the notices issued by the AO but unfortunately relevant documents could not be filed for the reasons beyond their control. The Ld.AR further submitted that even though the assessee had filed their written submissions, because of the various problems faced by the company, the further documents in support of their claim of deduction could not be filed before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, prayed an opportunity to appear before the AO with the documents.
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessees.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
We have considered the submissions made by the assessee that because of the various reasons which were beyond their control, the necessary documents could not be filed before the authorities below. We have also considered the paper books filed by the assessee in support of their claim that the company was in financial difficulties and the banks also initiated recovery proceedings under the various Acts and therefore they were not in a position to furnish all the details before the authorities below. At the time of hearing, the assessee had given an undertaking that they will appear before the jurisdictional assessing officer with the documents in support of their grounds of appeal
, if one more opportunity is granted to them. to 12/Bang/2025
10. Considering the said submissions made by the assessees as well as the peculiar position in which the assessees are situated and also recording the submissions made by the assessees that they will appear before the AO along with the required documents, we are inclined to grant an another opportunity to the assessee to appear before the AO.
11. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) insofar as it confirms the addition made by the AO and remitted the issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration. We also made it clear that the assessees should appear before the jurisdictional assessing officer, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order along with the documents in support of their case, otherwise, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) would restore automatically.
In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th May, 2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026