P. K. RAJGARHIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-35(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

P. K. Rajgarhia 549/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07& 2007-08 “1.The ld Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and the ld Income Tax Officer has erred in disallowing interest paid on loan amounting to Rs.9,71,526.00. 2.The ld Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and the ld Income Tax Officer has erred in considering the returned income of the assessee at Rs.1,84,260.00 instead of Rs.1,74,260.00. 3.The assessee craves for the right, without prejudice, to add, delete, alter, modify or otherwise present any grounds of appeal either at or before hearing of the appeal.” 3.1.The first ground raised by the assessee relates to addition on account of interest paid on loan amounting to Rs.9,71,526/-. 3.2. The brief facts qua the issue are thatassessee filed its return of income on 30.03.2007, disclosing total income of Rs. 1,74,260/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny U/s 143 (2) of the I.T. Act and assessing officer completed the assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act by making addition of Rs.9,71,526/- on account of interest on loan. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the assesseeexplained the sources of investments in various mutual funds during the relevant previous year. The assessee denied to have made any investment in Reliance Mutual Fund, Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund which were verified and found to be correct. However, the investments in SBI Mutual Funds were repeated twice against one time investment. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was observed by the AO that the assessee paid interest on loan taken to the tune of Rs.9,71,526/- whereas no interest was charged on loan given by him, which it appears to be the main sources of income of the assessee. The assessee was asked to show cause as to why interest on such loan shall not be disallowed and add back to the total income of the assessee. But the assessee neither appeared before the AO nor filed any explanation in this regard, therefore, AO made addition of Rs.9,71,526/-. 3.3 Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition made by the AO. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee had submitted before the CIT(A) that the assessee was having income under the head business, capital gains and other Page | 2 P. K. Rajgarhia 549/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07& 2007-08 sources. The assessee had taken unsecured loans as on 31.03.2005 atRs. 1,86,602,47/- and given loans of Rs.2,22,59,492/-. The assessee had paid interest of Rs.9,71,526/- during the year. The ld. AO had disallowed this amount since no interest was charged on such loans given. The assessee submitted that non charging of interest on loans given by an assessee cannot itself be a sufficient ground for disallowing interest paid by the assessee on loans taken by it in the absence of any nexus between borrowed capital and interest free advances or in the absence of any finding that borrowed funds are delivered for giving interest free loan, therefore, non charging of interest on loans given by an assessee cannot itself be a sufficient reason for disallowing interest paid by an assessee on loans taken by it in the absence of any finding that borrowed funds or part thereof was diverted towards interest free advance. The assessee also relied on the judgment of Meenakshi Synthetics P Ltd Vs. CIT (2003) 84 ITD 563 (Lucknow), wherein similar facts were discussed. The assessee further submitted before the CIT(A) that where nothing had been brought on record by the revenue to prove that interest, bearing funds available with the assessee,was not utilized for the purpose of business but was given as interest free loans or advances, therefore the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital was not justified. Similar facts were held in the case of ITO Vs. Naresh Fabricks(2002) 750 TTJ (Jodh) 385. Based on the above submissions of the assessee, the ld CIT(A) observed thatthe fact of the case is that the AO noticed that there was loans/advances taken by the assessee on which interest was paid. But at the same time, he had also given loan/advances on which interest was not charged. Thereby, there was diversion of interest bearing loan funds for non-business purpose.The CIT(A) further observed that assessee could not give the facts/figures/breakup to support that no interest bearing funds were diverted for non-business purposes. That is, the assesseedid not prove the fact that the interest bearing loan funds were fully utilized for the purpose of business only, therefore, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer. 3.4. Not being satisfied with the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that assessee had its own interest free fund which was higher than the loan given by the assessee.That Page | 3 P. K. Rajgarhia 549/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07& 2007-08 is, the assessee had interest free loan at Rs.3,01,17,619/- (vide pb.1) which is greater than Rs.2,20,85,815/- (vide pb.2). In other words, the assessee had not received the interest on Rs.2,20,85,815/- which was given by the assessee out of its interest free loan at Rs.3,01,17,619/-.The loans and advances are sufficiently covered. Broadly, interest-free loans & advances have been given out of interest fee funds viz., capital of the assessee. Therefore, there has been no diversion of interest-bearing loans for investment in interest-free loans & advances. 3.5.On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 3.6 Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we notice that assessee has interest free fund at Rs.3,01,17,619/- which is greater than the loans and advances of Rs.2,20,85,815/-. Therefore, assessee had sufficient non-interest bearing funds to make the tax free loans and advances. The assessee-company had sufficient funds other than borrowed money for giving the interest free loans and advances. Therefore, the conditions of section 36(1)(iii) has been complied with. We note that non charging of interest on loans given by an assessee cannot itself be a sufficient ground for disallowing interest paid by the assessee on loans taken by it in the absence of any nexus between borrowed capital and interest free advances or in the absence of any finding that borrowed funds are delivered for giving interest free loan, therefore, non charging of interest on loans given by an assessee cannot itself be a sufficient reason for disallowing interest paid by an assessee on loans taken by it in the absence of any finding that borrowed funds or part thereof was diverted towards interest free advance.

P. K. Rajgarhia 549/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07& 2007-08 However, we note that the assessee has submitted before us the details of interest free funds for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08, the same has neither been examined by CIT(A) not by Assessing Officer, therefore, we are of the view that the details of interest free funds needs to be examined by Assessing Officer, hence we remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer and we direct the Assessing Officer to examine the details of interest free funds and adjudicate the issue as per the discussion (supra) and as per the provisions of law. Therefore, we allow this ground appeal for statistical purposes. 3.7.In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (on Ground no1) is allowed for statistical purposes. 4.GroundNo.2 raised by the assessee relates to anerror in returned income of the assessee. Returned income of the assessee was at Rs.1,74,260/- whereas the AO has considered it at Rs.1,84,260/-. 4.1After going through the assessment order, we observe that the Income Tax Officer had stated in the first para of the assessment order that the returned of income of the assessee was at Rs.174,260/- whereas on Page 2 of the assessment order, returned income for the purposes of computation of total income was taken by the AO at Rs.1,84,260/-. We observe that this is an arithmetical error committed by the AO and needs to be corrected. Therefore, we direct the AO to consider the returned income of the assessee at Rs.1,74,260/-. 4.2 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No.2), is allowed. 5.Now, we shall take assessee’s appeal in ITA No.549/Kol/2014, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: Page |

5. P. K. Rajgarhia ITA No.548& 549/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07& 2007-08 “1.The ld Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and the ld Income Tax Officer have erred in disallowing Rs.48,258/- u/s 14A of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2.Theld Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and the ld Income Tax Officer have erred in disallowing Rs.2,43,105/- from interest on loan. 3.Theld Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and the ld Income Tax Officer has erred in charging interest u/s 234B of the I T. Act, 1961. 4.Theassessee craves for the right, without prejudice, to add, delete, alter, modify or otherwise present any grounds of appeal either at or before hearing of the appeal.”

5.1.The first ground raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs.48,258/- u/s 14A of the I. T. Act, 1961. 5.2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that this is an arithmetic mistake done by the AO. The AO disallowed u/s 14A at Rs.84,876/- which does not have any base. The assessee being an individual had not incurred any expenses directly for earning exempt income. The AO did not establish the nexus of the exempt income vs. the exempt expenditure. The AO merely made the ad hoc disallowance at Rs.84,876/- without assigning any reasons. Therefore, it is illegal and unjustified. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that nothing has been brought on record by the AO that interest bearing funds were available with the assessee is not utilized for the purpose of the business but has given as interest free loan or advances. Hence, the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital is unjustified. However, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO stating that assessee did not prove that interest bearing funds were fully utilized for the purpose of business only and, therefore, the ld CIT(A) held that AO was justified in making the disallowance of interest. However, the ld. DR for the revenue has fairly Page | 6