42. Principal CIT vs.
Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 220
(Bom.) Date of order: 4th
March, 2020 A.Y.: 2010-11
(i) Business expenditure –
Disallowance – Sections 14A and 36(1)(iii) of ITA, 1961 – Interest on borrowed
capital – Finding that investment from interest-free funds available with
assessee – Presumption that advances made out of interest-free funds available
with assessee – Deletion of addition made u/s 14A justified
(ii) Unexplained
expenditure – Section 69C of ITA, 1961 – Suspicion that certain purchases were
bogus based on information from sales tax authority – Neither independent
inquiry conducted by A.O. nor due opportunity given to assessee – Deletion of
addition by appellate authorities justified; A.Y. 2010-11
For the
A.Y. 2010-11, the A.O. held that the purchases made by the assessee from two
sellers were bogus; according to information received from the Sales Tax
Department, Government of Maharashtra, those two sellers had not actually sold
any material to the assessee. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice in
response to which the assessee furnished copies of the bills and entries made
in its books of accounts in respect of such purchases. However, the A.O. in his
order made addition u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He also made
disallowances under sections 14A and 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
The
Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowances. The Tribunal upheld the
decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). According to the Tribunal, the A.O. had
merely relied upon the information received from the Sales Tax Department but
had not carried out any independent inquiry. The Tribunal recorded a finding
that the A.O. failed to show that the purchased materials were bogus, whereas
the assessee produced materials to show the genuineness of the purchases and
held that there was no justification to doubt the genuineness of the purchases
made by the assessee.
On
appeal by the Revenue, the Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the
Tribunal and held as under:
‘i) On
the facts as found by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as affirmed by the
Tribunal, the presumption that if there were funds available with the assessee,
both interest-free and overdraft or loans, the investments were out of the
interest-free funds generated or available with the assessee was established.
The Tribunal had affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the
addition made by the A.O. u/s 14A on the ground that the interest-free funds
available with the assessee were far in excess of the advance given. The
principle of apportionment under Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 did not
arise as the jurisdictional facts had not been pleaded by the Department.
ii) The
finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) as affirmed by the Tribunal was that the
assessee had not utilised interest-bearing borrowed funds for making
interest-free advances but had its own interest-free fund far in excess of
interest-free advance. No question of law in respect of the deletion of the
disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 36(1)(iii) arose.
iii) The Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition
made u/s 69C on the ground of bogus purchases. Merely on suspicion based on the
information received from another authority, the A.O. ought not to have made
the additions without carrying out independent inquiry and without affording
due opportunity to the assessee to controvert the statements made by the
sellers before the other authority.’
