Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai, in 17/A.Y.2014-15/C.I.T(A)-2, dated 27.08.2018 for the AY 2014-15.
Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon represented on behalf of the assessee.
At the outset, it was fairly agreed that by both sides that the only issue in the Revenue’s appeal was against the action of ld.CIT(A) in allowing the expenditure claimed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was fairly agreed by both the parties that the issued raised in the Revenue’s appeal is squarely covered by the decisions of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for preceding assessment years being 2012-13 & 2013-14 in dated 20.06.2019 and ITA No.995/Chny/2017 dated 19.07.2018 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had followed the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. Shriram Investments (Firm), reported in [2015] 54 taxmann.com 15, had held the issue in favour of assessee by holding that:-
“7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Assessee had debited in its profit and loss account, only the actual interest paid and credited only the actual interest received, since it was following the cash system of accounting. In our opinion in a cash basis of accounting system, there is no question of applying any matching principle. Interest is credited as income at point of receipt and debited as expenses at the point of payment. According to the disparity in the period for which interest is received and paid, there could be difference. That apart, copy of the partners current account placed at paper book page 10, shows that debit balances in partners current account arose more on account of losses suffered in the earlier years, than due to any drawings by the partners. It might be true that it had received interest only from four individuals to which it had advanced amounts during the relevant previous year. This does not mean that assessee had not received interest from other parties in other years. During the previous assessment year 2009-2010, it had received interest of ₹ 13,34,06,510/ - from persons to whom it had advanced loans. Hence in our opinion, it is obvious that disparity between interest received and interest payment arose not on account of any selective charging of interest, but on account of cash basis system followed by the assessee. There is nothing in the statute which stopped the assessee from following the cash system of accounting. In assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-2010 on Revenue appeal (ITA No.1690/Mds/2013, dated 27.11.2013), this Tribunal had held as under:-
‘’6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the assessee is an investment company made investments in group concerns as part of its business of the assessee i.e. advancing loans to group concerns. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also gave a finding that monies are borrowed from group concerns only and these monies are utilized by the investee concerns for their trade purposes. Since the investments in shares of group concerns amounting to ₹ 4,38,00.000/ - are within the course of trading activities and out of commercial expediency and the decision of the Hon’ble Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders (288 ITR 1) is applicable to the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax ₹ (Appeals) also held that 76,58,00,000/ - invested in sister concerns as share application money is not capable of yielding any income nor any right to a benefit is vested in, therefore provisions of Section 14A are not attracted in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the cases of MSA Security Services and NMS Consultancy P. Ltd (supra). The Department could not rebut any of the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, we sustain the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act. The grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected’’.
Thus assessee has been considered as an investment company and making investments was part of its business. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court also in the case of CIT vs. Shriram Investments (Firm), (2015) 54 taxmann.com 15 also held that deduction u/s.36(1) (iii) of the Act had to be allowed in respect of interest paid, if capital was borrowed for the purpose of business or profession. As already mentioned by us, there is no finding by any of the lower authorities that disparity between interest receipts and payments arose on account of charging of lower rate of interest on loans advanced when compared to interest paid on loans received. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in making a disallowance for the difference between interest received ₹ and interest paid by the assessee. Disallowance of 1,65,81,384/ - stands deleted. “
It was the submission that the Revenue had not accepted the said decisions and appeals are pending.
We have heard the submissions of both the sides and perused the material available on record. As it is noticed that the issue raised in the Revenue’s appeal is squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years, and as it is noticed that ld.CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline by deleting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer by following the decisions of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed.
In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 22nd day of July, 2019 in Chennai.