Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
ORDER
PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2012-13.
On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment application was filed through the notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. The case file further reveals
2 that even on earlier occasion there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. Considering the aforesaid facts, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after considering the material on record and after hearing by the Learned DR.
The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :
Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of logistics, warehousing, Transportation, packaging and Delivery services. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.11.2012 declaring taxable income at Nil after setting off brought forward losses of Rs.6,22,61,565/- and income of Rs.6,25,27,425/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the total income was determined at Rs.2,11,45,176/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 26.07.2017 in Appeal No.726/16- 17 granted substantial relief of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:
“1. Whether Ld CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,64,26,058/- made by the AO on account of capitalization of the expenses incurred on technical guidance fees? 2. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.”
3 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has paid Rs.2,19,01,410/- to M/s. Honda Logistic Incorporation, Japan. Assessee was asked as to explain as to how the expenditure was Revenue in nature, to which assessee made the submissions. The submissions made by the assessee was not found acceptable to AO. AO was of the view that the nature of technical assistance fees paid by the assessee was of capital in nature. He therefore held it to be not an allowable expenditure but however allowed depreciation @ 25% and thus made net disallowance of Rs.1,64,26,058/-.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee noted that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 and her predecessor in those years has decided the issue in assessee’s favour. She further noted that in those years, the Hon’ble ITAT had also dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and held the expenditure of technical and commercial assistance to be of revenue in nature. She further noted that CIT(A) on similar facts had allowed the ground in assessee’s favour in A.Y. 2011-12 also.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us.
Before us, Learned DR supported the order of CIT(A).
4 9. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to disallowance of technical fees. We find that CIT(A) while deciding the issue in assessee’s favour has noted that identical issue arose in assessee’s case in A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010- 11 and also in A.Y. 2011-12 and her predecessor had decided the issue in assessee’s favour in those years. She further noted that in A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 against the order of CIT(A), the matter was carried by the Revenue before the Tribunal and Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of Revenue. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by the Revenue. In such a circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2021