M/S HANGYA ICE CREAM PVT LTD ,HUBBALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1), HUBBALI

of assessee, confirmed the addition of disputed issues and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the Tribunal.

5. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the Ground Nos.1 and 2 are general in nature and Ground No.3 is in respect of claim of additional depreciation and submitted that the assessee did not produce evidences and emphsised that the additional depreciation on computers fall under the category of plant and machinery. Similarly, for disallowance under Rule 14A, the learned Authorised Representative referred to the observations of the CIT(Appeals) at para 6.2, were the CIT(Appeals) has restricted the disallowance of expenditure to the extent of dividend income and whereas the assessee has sufficient surplus funds including shareholders funds and the assessee's investments are comparatively lower and relied on decisions of High Court.

6. On the disputed issue of disallowance of interest under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessee has paid interest to the Tata Capital Ltd but the tax has not been deducted at source. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that Tata Capital Ltd. for income tax purpose and hence cannot be added to the assessee's income. Whereas in respect of disallowance of interest of Rs.5,17,058, the contentions of the learned Authorised Representative that the assessee has surplus funds and therefore out of own funds, the advances have been provided to sister concerns and no disallowance of interest is warranted. Further in respect of additional ground of appeal

, ;the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the delayed payment of employees contribution to the Provident Fund, the payments have been made within the time allowed under Section 139(1) of the Act and prayed for allowing the appeal. Contra, the ld. DR supported the orders of CIT(Appeals).

7. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the assessee has challenged the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer for irregularities and non-production of evidences. First we shall take up the additional ground of appeal in respect of delayed payments of employees contribution to Provident Fund. We found that the assessee has made deposits within the financial year but the fact remains that this ground of appeal was not raised before the CIT (Appeals). Accordingly, we restore this ground of appeal to the file of CIT (Appeals) to adjudicate on merits and allow allow additional ground of appeal for statistical purposes. Whereas in respect of claim of additional depreciation, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee has evidences and proof that the computer is an essential part of plant and machinery installed at the factory premises. We found the assessee has not produced any evidence in the appellate proceedings. Hence we consider it proper to remit the disputed issue to the file of CIT (Appeals) for adjudication considering the evidences filed by the assessee. On next issue of disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of restricting the disallowance of expenditure to the extent of dividend income, the learned Authorised Representative contention, are the assessee has own funds and referred to the Paper Book at page 59 where the shareholders funds as on 31.3.2013 are Rs.5,78,67,588 whereas the investment made by the assessee are Rs.77,90,900. The learned Authorised Representative emphasized that the investments are less than the shareholders funds and such investments are routed through own funds hence there cannot be any disallowance of expenditure as borrowed funds are not utilized for this purpose and relied on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd. (2015) 58 Taxman.com 219 where it was observed that the assessee has surplus funds to make major part of investment in the interest free securities and there is negligible increase in the investment during the year and addition cannot be made under Rule 8D(2) (ii) and (iii) and further learned Authorised Representative relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Microlabs Limited (2017) 79 taxman.com 365. We found the assessee has surplus funds and relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Microlabs Limited (supra) where the Hon'ble High Court has observed at paras 41 & 42 which is read as under : “41. The hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) has held that where the interest-free funds far exceed the value of investments, it should be considered that investments have been made out of interest-free funds and no disallowance under section 14A towards any interest expenditure can be made. This view was again confirmed by the hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., of 2012, judgment dated July 23, 2014 - [2014] 366 UR 505 (Bom) wherein it was held that when investments are made out of common pool of funds and non-interest bearing funds were more than the investments in tax-free securities, no disallowance of interest expenditure under section 14A can be made.

42. In the light of the above said decisions, we are of the view that disallowance of interest expenses in the present case of Rs. 49,42,473 made under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." Accordingly, we following the judicial decisions, restrict the addition to the extent of Rs.38,857.

8. On the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act with respect to interest paid to Tata Capital Ltd., the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the recipient has offered income in their assessment, therefore, there is no requirement to make addition. When a query was raised to the learned Authorised Representative regarding obtaining of Certificate from Auditor in Form 26A that the recipient has offered the income in their Assessment. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the information is available with the assessee and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate before lower authorities. Accordingly to meet the ends of justice, we restore this issue to the file of CIT(Appeals) to Form 26A and adjudicate on merits.

9. On the last disputed issue, in respect of disallowance of interest on advances provided to the sister concern. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee has adequate funds and out of surplus funds, the advances are provided to the sister concerns due to business connection. But the Assessing Officer has disallowed interest @ 12% p.a. The contention of the learned Authorised Representative that the advances provided to the sister concern are comparatively lower than the assessee's own funds and such advances are out of non-interest bearing funds and also there exists business connection with activities of sister concerns. We found from the financial statements the assessee has sufficient own funds in comparison to the advances provided to the sister concerns, further out of surplus funds of Rs.5,78,67,588 as on 31.03.2013, the advances to sister concerns are to the extent of Rs.39.91 lakhs and investments of Rs.77.74 lakhs and both aggregating to Rs.117.65 lakhs which is comparatively lower than surplus funds as on 31.3.2013. Hence the presumption would arise that the advances to sister concern and investments are out of interest free funds/surplus funds. We support our view relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the decision of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it was held as under :

Held, dismissing the appeal, that if there were funds available both interest free and overdraft and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest free funds generated or available with the company, if the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. In this case this presumption was established considering the finding of fact both by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The interest was deductible.” We respectfully follow the ratio of judicial decision and the presumption that advances to sister concerns are out of interest free funds and accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the interest disallowance of Rs.5,19,058.