SHRI AJAY BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(1), MUMBAI

1 ITA 4946/Mum/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 4946/Mum/2018 (Assessment year: 2011-12)

Shri Ajay Bansal Vs ACIT-Circle 19(1), Mumbai C/o B.M. Parekh & Co. 203/3, Navjivan Society, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400 008. PAN : AACPB6224B APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT

Appellant by None (Adjournment application) Respondent by Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 01-08-2019 Date of pronouncement 20-08-2019 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Member : 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-34, Mumbai dated 31st May 2018 which in turn arises from assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 24th

February 2014. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal.

(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in assessing total income of assessee at Rs. 41,94,710/- instead of Rs. 21,75,251/- as returned by the assessee. The return income of assessee may please be accepted. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,19,454/- paid to Standard Chartered Bank as claiming the expenditure under section 57 of the

2 ITA 4946/Mum/2018

Act, in respect of amount borrowed from Standard Chartered Bank. The said interest rate may please be allowed as deduction. (c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case landed counsel appeal has erred in law in confirming not allowing the interest paid as deduction under section 36 (l)(iii) of the income tax act as business expenses. The said interest may please be allowed as deduction.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee derives income from salary,

business and other sources. The assessee filed his return of income on 09-

03-2012 for assessment year 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.

21,75,251/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. The assessing

officer after serving the statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) completed assessment on 24th February 2014. The assessing officer while

making assessment order, besides other additions/disallowances, made

addition on account of interest disallowances of Rs. 20,19,454/- under

section 57 of the Act. On appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals)

the action of assessing officer was confirmed. Further aggrieved by the

order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has filed this

appeal before the Tribunal.

adjournment was filed on behalf of the assessee without any valid

reasons. Therefore, the application for adjournment was rejected.

DR) for the revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld.

3 ITA 4946/Mum/2018

DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR

further submitted that assessee has not proved the nexus of interest. The

certificate issued by Standard Chartered Bank indicates that the assessee

has taken loan for housing purpose only and is eligible for deduction

under section 24(b). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also rightly

confirmed action of Assessing Officer.

the orders of authorities below. During the assessment, the AO noted that

assessee has claimed interest expenses of Rs.20,19,455 u/s 57. The

assessee was asked to explain the nexus of expenditure to justify the

interest expenses against the income. The assessee filed a certificate of

Standard Chartered Bank dated 126-06-2011. The Assessing Officer has

recorded the contents of certificate in the following manner:-

“Your certificate of Principal and interest for the financial period April, 2010 to March 31, 2011. Greetings from Standard Chartered priority banking. We are writing to you to certify that the Home Loan (A/c No.47935251) granted by us is held in the name/s of : Mr. Ajay Narendra Bansal Ms. Usha Ajay Bansal Mr. Narendra Bansal And M/s Shiv Jagannath Steel Pvt Ltd Details with respect to interest and principal paid during the period April 1,2010 to 31,2011 are as under:- Interest payable Rs. 2,019,454.85 Interest paid Rs.20,10,454.85 Principal amount repaid Rs. 8,92,717.15 The loan balance outstanding as on March 31, 2011 is Rs. 23,958,970.13 Note:

4 ITA 4946/Mum/2018

Deduction under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the act) in respect of interest on the borrowed principal amount and deduction under section 80C(2)(xviii) of the Act in respect of repayment of the principal amount can be claimed, if the borrowed amount is being used for the purpose specified in section 24(b) and section 80C(2)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act, subject to the fulfilment of conditions specified therein.”

Officer concluded that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section

24(b)as well as under section 80C. The assessee could not prove that

interest expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of

making or earning income from other sources. The Assessing officer

disallowed the entire interest expenses. Before learned Commissioner

(Appeals), in the statement of facts, the assessee specifically stated that

assessee claimed deduction of interest under section 57 of the Act. The

Assessing officer made disallowance without verification of fact and

providing opportunity to the assessee. The assessee, again vide

submissions dated 06-04-2018 stated that the assessee made the payment

of principal amount of Rs.8,92,717 and the interest amount of

Rs.20,19,455. The assessee further stated that the assessee has granted

loan to Hari Om Carriers, Shiv Aum Steel (P) Ltd and Soften Carriers Pvt

Ltd and received interest @15% p.a. from such parties. The assessee has

offered said interest income under the head “Income from other sources”

in the return of income. The assessee has claimed deduction of the

5 ITA 4946/Mum/2018

interest paid to Standard Chartered Bank against the interest declared

under the head, “Income from other sources”, therefore, entitled for

deduction 57(iii). The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble

Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Taj International Jewelers (2012)

20 taxmann.com 217 (Del). 7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the contention of

assessee held that during the assessment the assessee failed to prove the

nexus of interest expenses against the income earned. It was observed by

learned Commissioner (Appeals) that perusal of certificate / letter of

Standard Chartered Bank referred by Assessing Officer in the assessment

order that interest on the loan granted to the assessee can be claimed

under section 24(b) and deduction of principal amount under section 80C.

However, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of interest u/s 57(iii)

without establishing direct nexus for interest claimed and against the

interest income declared under the heard “ Income from other sources”.

For claiming interest expenditure under section 57(iii), the assessee must

be laid or expended wholly and exclusively, must not be in the nature of

capital expenditure, must not be in the nature of personal expenses and

must be incurred in the relevant previous year and not in prior of

subsequent year. Thus, the assessee has not fulfilled the aforesaid

6 ITA 4946/Mum/2018

conditions and failed to prove the direct nexus for interest paid and

earned. 8. We have carefully seen the contents of the certificate issued by Standard

Charted Bank (SCB), contents of which are extracted by Assessing officer

in his order. We have noted that SCB has clearly mentioned in the said

certificate that “ deduction under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(the act) in respect of interest on the borrowed principal amount and deduction under section 80C(2)(xviii) of the Act in respect of repayment of the principal amount can be claimed, if the borrowed amount is being used for the purpose specified in section 24(b) and section 80C(2)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act”. In our view the lower authority has escaped their

attention in noting the contents of the certificate of SCB. Admittedly no

investigation is made by assessing officer or by learned Commissioner

(Appeals) either from SCB or from the debtor of the assessee. The lower

authority disallowed the interest expenses without bringing any adverse

material on record that the assessee borrowed the capital as home loan

and not for the purpose of business or profession. 9. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Taj International

Jewellers (supra), on the facts that assessee availed loan from bank. The

sum was deposited with the bank and converted into fixed deposit for

opening letters of credit, etc. The assessee earned interest on the said

7 ITA 4946/Mum/2018

deposit and the same was offered under the head, “Income from other

sources”. It adjusted interest paid on the loan against the interest earned

on FDR while computing its taxable income under the head, “Income

from other sources”. The AO did not allow netting of interest from

interest earned on deposit and made addition. On appeal before the

Tribunal, the addition was deleted. On further appeal before Hon’ble

High Court it was held that interest paid should be allowed u/s 57(iii) as

the amount was borrowed from the bank taking advantage of exim policy

as well as lower LIBOR rate of interest and the interest paid was

expenditure laid out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose

of making or earning of interest income and dismissed the appeal of the

revenue. 10. We have noted that in the present appeal despite the specific contention

of assessee that assessee has granted loan to three concerns, viz. Hari Om

Carriers, Shiv Aum Steel (P) Ltd and Soften Carriers Pvt Ltd and earned

interest @15% from these parties. The assessee has offered the said

interest income under the head “Income from other sources”, in the return

of income and claimed interest expenses paid to Standard Chartered

Bank. We have further noted that despite specific contention of the

assessee that assessee has offered interest income against expenditure

incurred on interest, the lower authorities have not verified the facts. In

8 ITA 4946/Mum/2018

our considered view, the ratio of decision in Taj International Jewellers

(supra) is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. Therefore,

we direct the AO to allow interest expenditure of Rs.20,19,454. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20-08-2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (Shamim Yahya) (Pawan Singh) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 20th August, 2019 Pk/- Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order

Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai