DEUTSCHE INVESTMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-

In the above cited appeal, the Ld. AO made the following additions while completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act:

a) The Ld. AO disallowed the Global Management Charges claimed as expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act stating that only an agreement with DBAG (Deutsche Bank AG) relating to services rendered by the Bank to the appellant company was provided and the basis of services rendered etc. were not provided.

b) The Ld. AO was not satisfied with the explanation given by appellant company with respect to back office support charges, cost allocation for Income Tax related charges etc.

Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd.

2
for furnishing written submissions and evidences in support of grounds of appeal. In response to these four hearing notices, the appellant requested for adjournment and furnishing additional grounds of appeal. Then, NFAC
Commissioner of Income
Tax
(Appeals) issued an enablement of communication window notices on 4.11.2022, but there was no compliance from appellant. During the calendar year 2024 and 2025, 9 (nine) times the notices were sent for fixing hearing. All these times, appellant had requested for adjournment. Since more than four years elapsed, the Ld. CIT(A) went ahead to adjudicate the issues based on the assessment order and grounds of appeal which was not substantiated by appellant company. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Ld. AO has issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire calling for relevant details/documents. In his order, Ld. CIT(A) observed that Ld. AO called for the details of expenses of Global Management Charges, and the appellant company has filed a copy
‘Service Agreement’ only, but did not elaborate nor filed evidences relating to nature of expenditure and whether there is business necessity to spend the same. Similarly, the expenditure relating to ‘System Infrastructure Support’
also, the details and nature of expenditure was not explained by appellant company. It was also observed that the appellant company has not provided the details of work carried out by the service provider and did not respond to the query of Ld. AO as to why two different entities were providing similar services. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the appellant company went on asking for the adjournments without giving replies to the queries raised by Ld. AO/Ld. CIT(A). Meanwhile, the appellant company has raised two more additional grounds of appeal with respect to Dividend Distribution Tax under 115-O of the Act and requested the appellate authority to direct the AO to allow the deduction relating to Education Cess and Higher Education Cess paid by appellant company which cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. Finally, at page 15 of the order of Ld. CIT(A), NAFC gave table depicting the dates of hearing date fixed and reply filed by appellant asking for adjournment on various dates spanning four years. Finally, the Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd.

3
Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and others 10 CTR 354 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late
4. Aggrieved by the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), an appeal was filed before ITAT contending that both the authorities made additions/confirmed the additions in the assessment order without providing reasons for disallowance of expenditure. Before the ITAT, the Ld. AR of the appellant has pleaded before the Bench that one more opportunity may be given to appellant to provide all details and the matter may be remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A) without explaining the reasons for seeking adjournment several times as mentioned in page No. 15 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) over a period of four years. The ld. DR relied on orders of AO and Ld. CIT(A) and opposed the plea of remitting matter to the file of first appellate authority.

4
ends of justice and fair play, the Bench decided to give one more opportunity to the appellant company to provide all details before Ld. CIT(A). The appellant company is directed to comply with the hearing notices of Ld.
CIT(A) and should not seek further adjournments. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to take into account all the required details and pass appellate order afresh.
But, as mentioned above, the appellant company has not properly responded to the 15 notices issued over a period of more than 4 years by Ld. CIT(A), the Bench decided to impose a nominal cost of Rs. 10,000/- to Maharashtra
State Legal Aid Fund”.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15/10/2025. (PAWAN SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER,

////

(