ACIT, ERODE vs. MAHARAJA SATHYAM INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED, ERODE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal could not verify the availability of the opening balance as the balance sheet was not on record. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed interest expenditure on a loan. The Assessing Officer disallowed it, finding no non-interest bearing funds. The CIT(Appeals) allowed it, citing an opening balance.
What were the issues?
Whether the interest expenditure is allowable when there is a dispute regarding the availability of non-interest bearing funds and opening balance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Coimbatore, dated 29.02.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13.
Shri S. Nataraja, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee availed a loan of `15,23,50,925/- from M/s Paramasivam Palaniswamy Charitable Trust and paid interest of `2,70,13,135/-. Admittedly, the loan was transferred to M/s Maharaja Industries at free of interest. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee claimed the entire amount of `2,70,13,135/- as expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The Assessing Officer, after verifying the balance sheet, found no non-interest bearing funds were available with the assessee. However, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) found that there was opening balance available to the extent of `5,94,39,110/-. According to the Ld. D.R., it is not known how the CIT(Appeals) came to know that the opening balance was available to the extent of `5,94,39,110/- when the Assessing Officer specifically found after referring to the balance sheet that no non- interest bearing funds were available with the assessee.
On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the opening balance available with the assessee to the extent of `5,94,39,110/- was not considered by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly found that to the extent of opening balance, there cannot be any disallowance of interest. On a query from the Bench when the Assessing Officer says no non-interest bearing funds were available with the assessee after verifying the balance sheet, how the CIT(Appeals) says that there was opening balance of `5,94,39,110/- available with the assessee? The Ld.counsel submitted that the CIT(Appeals) after verifying the books of account, found that there was an opening balance of `5,94,39,110/-. On a query from the Bench, the Ld.counsel submitted that copy of balance sheet is not readily available for examination.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee claims that an opening balance of `5,94,39,110/- was available with it, therefore, to the extent, interest cannot be disallowed. However, a copy of the balance sheet is not available on record of this Tribunal. Therefore, we are unable to express any opinion regarding availability of opening balance. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer after verifying the balance sheet, Profit & Loss account, etc. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the entire disallowance of interest is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter after finding out the availability of opening balance, non-interest bearing funds, etc. and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 27th July, 2017 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 37
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 933/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 932/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 931/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company… vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), VadodaraITA 768/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026