JACOB THOMAS,KOZHENCHERRY vs. ACIT,THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA

Since identical issues are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of wholesale and retail trading of paint, steel,, cement, sanitary and hardware items. The return of income for AY 2016- 17 was filed on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 37,97,390/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Thiruvalla (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 21.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 5,42,39,544/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.4,88,78,154/- by disallowing the interest paid on loan borrowed on the ground that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus of proving genuineness and provide any details of loan and also failed to establish nexus between he loan amount borrowed and the investment made. Accordingly he made disallowance of interest u/s. 57(iii) of the Act.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the interest paid on loan borrowed from friends and relatives is allowable as the loans were utilised for the purpose of making investments made for earning interest income. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the findings of the AO in the remand report that the appellant failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently opposed allowance of interest paid on loans borrowed from friends and relatives.

On perusal of the assessment order it is clear that the AO denied deduction of interest paid on loans borrowed solely on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the loans as well as the investment had not yielded interest income. However, the AO had chosen not to make addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore the question of genuineness of the loan does not arise. It appears that the AO disallowed the claim solely on the ground that the appellant claimed deduction of higher interest as compared to the income earned. Even the learned CIT(A), adopted the same reasoning while upholding the order of the AO. The reasoning of the lower authorities cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as it is well settled position of law that interest expenditure incurred on moneys borrowed for the purpose of making investments, which had not yielded any interest, is still an admissible deduction u/s. 57(iii) of the Act in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra)