BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 886/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2020-2021Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the breakup of the Rs. 58.09 crores disallowance was not explicit, requiring factual verification. The matter was restored to the AO to verify if the Rs. 21.97 crores was indeed disallowed by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Rs. 21.97 crores for amortization of ROU assets and suo motu disallowed it in the return of income. However, the CPC made a duplicate addition for the same amount during processing under Section 143(1)(a). The assessee's rectification application is pending.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) on account of ROU asset amortization constituted a double addition when the assessee had suo motu disallowed it in the return of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)(a),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Hearing: 17/04/2025

आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. :

1.

This appeal was earlier disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 19.02.2025. However, pursuant to the order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 14/Hyd/2025 dated 28.03.2025, the Tribunal recalled the earlier order for the limited purpose of adjudicating Ground Nos. 22 to 27, which had remained unadjudicated.

2.

The ground nos. 22 to 26 were not pressed by the assessee in the original appellate proceeding before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground nos. 22 to 26 of the assessee are dismissed being not pressed.

3. The said Ground No. 27 raised by the assessee pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 21.97 crores on account of amortisation of Right of Use (ROU) assets, which according to the assessee was already suo motu disallowed while filing the return of income, and hence, the subsequent addition made in the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) results in double addition.

4.

During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had claimed Rs. 21.97 crores in the profit and loss account towards amortisation of ROU assets, as disclosed in Note No. 27A of the audited financial statements (placed at page no. 729 of the paper book). However, while computing the income under the head “profits and gains of business or profession,” the assessee had suo motu disallowed this amount by including it in the overall disallowance of Rs. 58.09 crores in Schedule BP of the return of income (placed at page no. 602 of the paper book).

5.

The Ld. AR further submitted that despite such disallowance, CPC while processing the return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act again made an adjustment for Rs. 21.97 crores, leading to a duplicate addition. The assessee had also filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act, which remains undisposed. The Ld. AR further submitted that this fact was also brought to the notice of the learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) during assessment proceedings, but no relief was granted. The Ld. AR referred to page nos. 511, 512, and 523 of the paper book to substantiate that the issue was raised during the course of assessment.

6. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that although the assessee has shown a disallowance of Rs. 58.09 crores in Schedule BP, the breakup was not filed along with the return of income. The Ld. DR referred to page no. 602 of the paper book and submitted that it is not clear whether the amount of Rs. 21.97 crores has actually been included in the disallowed sum. Accordingly, the Ld. DR argued that the issue may be remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for verification of facts.

7.

We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the records in the light of submissions made by either side. The Ld. AR has submitted that the amount of Rs. 21.97 crores on account of amortisation of Right of Use assets was already disallowed suo motu by the assessee in its computation of income. In support of this, the Ld. AR referred to Schedule BP of the return of income placed at page no. 602 of the paper book, wherein a total disallowance of Rs. 58.09 crores has been made. We have gone through page no. 602 and on perusal of the same, we find that the amount of Rs. 21.97 crores is not specifically itemized in the computation, but the overall claim of disallowance appears to be comprehensive in nature.

8.

The Ld. AR also referred to Note No. 27A of the audited financial statements placed at page no. 729, which reflects the amount of Rs. 21.97 crores as amortisation of Right of Use assets charged to the profit and loss account. We have also gone through page no. 729 and on perusal of the same, we find that the said amount has been accounted for as an expenditure in the books of account.

9. The Ld. DR referred to page no. 602 and contended that in the absence of specific breakup of the disallowance, it cannot be verified whether Rs. 21.97 crores was part of the disallowed amount or not. We agree that the breakup of the Rs. 58.09 crores disallowance is not explicitly on record, and factual verification is required in this regards.

10.

In view of the above, we consider it just and proper to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a directions to verify, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee, whether the amount of Rs. 21.97 crores towards amortisation of Right of Use assets was already suo motu disallowed by the assessee in the return of income or not. If it is found that the said amount was indeed disallowed by the assessee, then the addition made in the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act shall be deleted, and the income shall be recomputed after excluding such duplication.

11.

Accordingly, Ground No. 27 is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th May, 2025.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →