Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
O R D E R
PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Thane, for the assessment year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee deriving income from salary, share of profit from partnership firm, house property, capital gain and other sources, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total income at Rs. 1,18,90,306/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO issued notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act. In response thereof, the authorized representative appeared before the AO and filed the details called for. Since the assessee had debited interest of loan Assessment Year: 2012-13 amounting to Rs. 26,96,817/- in the profit and loss account, AO asked the assessee to furnish the evidence in support of its claim. The AR submitted that the assessee claimed interest expenses of Rs. 26,96,817/- on unsecured loans taken in earlier years which were invested in the capitals of various firms and Private Limited Companies in which the assessee was partner/director, from where the assessee was getting remuneration and shares of profit. The AR further submitted that since the assessee had entered into number of transactions, it is difficult to match one to one co-relation between unsecured loans taken and its utilization in earlier years. Since, the assessee failed to match one to one co-relation, to establish that the loans taken were utilized for the purpose of TDR, which was sold during the year under consideration and earned profit at Rs. 4,82,400/-, the AO held that the assessee utilized the loan amounts for making investments. Accordingly, the claim of the interest payment of Rs. 26,96,817/- was allowed for capitalization in the investment made by the assessee and made disallowance of Rs. 26,96,817/- (including interest expenses amounting to Rs. 98,703/- on car loan) and added the same to the income of the assessee. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the AO. Against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT
(A) on the following effective ground:-
1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of 25,98,167/- on unsecured loan. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of 98,703/- on car loan.
Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs. Assessment Year: 2012-13 26,96,817/- including the interest expenses of Rs. 98,703/- on car loan. The Ld. counsel pointed out that the assessee earned an amount of Rs. 1,18,90,310/- during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and also received unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 5,54,17,944/-. Since, the assessee had sufficient funds available for making various business advances; the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have set aside the findings of the AO. The Ld. counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries (civil appeal No 19 of 2019), judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bombay), and decisions of the Mumbai Tribunal, submitted that the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are contrary to the ratio laid down in aforesaid cases. The Ld. counsel further contended that the assessee had raised various unsecured loans from his family members and relatives. Part of these loans were interest free and part of the loans were interest bearing and the assessee has claimed the interest on such interest bearing unsecured loans.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supporting the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), submitted that, since the assessee has failed to file any documentary evidence to show that the interest bearing unsecured loans raised by the appellant had utilized for the purpose of business, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record in the light of the rival contentions of the parties. The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs. 26,96,817/-. We notice that AO has disallowed the expenses on the ground that the assessee has utilized the loan amounts for the purpose of making investments. The Ld. CIT (A) has disallowed the same holding that the assessee has failed to establish the use of interest bearing unsecured loans for the purpose of business. During the arguments, the Ld. counsel submitted a chart Assessment Year: 2012-13 showing details of own funds and interest free funds available with the assessee, as per which, the assessee had Rs. 2,57,18,456/- in its capital account, unsecured loans (interest free) amounting to Rs. 3,45,13,444/- and current liabilities and deposits (interest free) amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/-