GETINGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the disallowance under section 40A(7) of the Act should be restricted to Rs. 8,23,852/- based on the tax audit report and the Appellant has suo moto disallowed the same, whereas the Appellant has inadvertently disallowed the higher amount of Rs. 10,38,117/- 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not granting the allowance of Rs. 2,14,265 which was erroneously disallowed by the Appellant.

3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing management fees and IT costs aggregating to Rs. 76,85,446 paid by the Appellant to its associated enterprise, Getinge AB, without duly appreciating that the said expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the Appellant's business.

3 ITA 4341/Mum/2025 Getinge India Private Ltd. 3.2 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that IT expenses were recurring in nature and the same had been allowed to the Appellant on a year-on- year basis.

4. Ground 4: Additions on account of net loss on foreign currency transactions and translation amounting to Rs.63,66,301 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing the expenditure for net loss on foreign currency transactions and translation amounting to Rs. 63,66,301/- 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the said expense is in the nature of revenue and ought to be allowed under section 43AA of the Act.

5. Ground 5: Non-grant of sufficient opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A).

5.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order under section 250 of the Act without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard.

5.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not issuing the hearing notice to the Appellant's updated primary contact details, thereby resulting in non-receipt of the appeal notices and denial of a fair opportunity of hearing.

7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act.

All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

2. The assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of medical systems, extended care and infection control and involved in import and supply of 4 ITA 4341/Mum/2025 Getinge India Private Ltd. medical devices and consumables. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 29.03.2019 declaring a total income of Rs.3,77,91,950/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs.3,92,16,020 under section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) wherein the income was assessed at Rs.5,40,99,880/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte since the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the CIT(A). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3. There is a delay of 454 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed the petition for condoning the delay along with an affidavit. The ld AR submitted that the email id of the employee who was taking care tax matter was initially given in Form 35 and when the said employee has left the organisation the assessee has updated the IT portal with the revised email id. The ld AR further submitted that the CIT(A) however continued send the notice of hearing to the email id of the erstwhile employee due to which the assessee did not know that such notices have been issued and for the same reason did not appear before the CIT(A). The ld AR also submitted that even the appellate order was sent to the old email and when the AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings the assessee came to know of the appellate order being passed. Accordingly the ld AR submitted that there is a reasonable cause the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and prayed that the same may be condoned.

5 ITA 4341/Mum/2025 Getinge India Private Ltd. id as mention in Form 35 since he is not aware of the change in the email id. Accordingly the ld DR submitted that there is no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the petition filed for condonation delay and the CIT(A)'s order it is noticed that the assessee did not respond to the notices due to which the CIT(A) has confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the AO without going into the merits of the impugned issues. The ld AR during the course of hearing submitted that the assessee did not respond to the notices for the reason that the notices were sent to the email id of the erstwhile employee and there is no wilful non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The ld AR therefore prayed that the appeal may be remitted back to the CIT(A) for consideration afresh.