2017 (11) TMI 2063 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance made on account of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) - Whether assessee had sufficient interest free funds of his own during the year? - HELD THAT - We have perused the balance sheet regarding the share capital and reserves and surpluses and find that the share capital and reserves and surplus far exceeds the advances given. Since the assessee has sufficient own funds no disallowance is called for. Similar issue has been dealt in the case of Gurudas Garg 2015 (8) TMI 569 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT In the case of Kissan Foods Ltd. 2017 (2) TMI 696 - ITAT CHANDIGARH wherein it was held that if there were funds available interest free and overdraft and loans taken then presumption would arise that investments would be out of interest free funds. We hold that the disallowance of interest made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is uncalled for and the order of the CIT(A) is therefore set aside. The disallowance made of interest is therefore deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh regarding addition made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh, dated 26/04/2017. The Assessee raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 4,13,848/-, stating that advances given to certain parties were not for business purposes and lacked commercial expediency.

The Assessing Officer observed that the advances made to M/s Zeal Exim Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Teji Brar Financial Pvt. Ltd. were not for business purposes and lacked commercial expediency. The Assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation during the assessment proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, citing the lack of business expediency for giving the advances.

During the appeal, the Assessee contended that the amounts were given for business purposes as investments. It was argued that similar issues of advances to the same companies were resolved favorably in previous assessments. The Assessee also highlighted having sufficient interest-free funds during the relevant year.

Upon review, the tribunal found that the share capital and reserves of the Assessee significantly exceeded the advances given. Considering the availability of own funds, the tribunal held that no disallowance was warranted. Citing precedents, the tribunal emphasized that if interest-free funds were available along with loans and overdrafts, investments would be presumed to be made from interest-free funds.

Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and deleted the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 4,94,811/-. The appeal of the Assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court.