FLAKTGROUP INDIA PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4447/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 March 2020AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not consider the evidence produced by the assessee and lacked reasons for sustaining the additions. Therefore, all contested issues were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and sale of air treatment equipment, filed a return declaring a loss. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of contractual service expenses, restructuring expenses, and provision for warranty cost.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of contractual service expenses, restructuring expenses, and provision for warranty cost by the revenue authorities was justified without considering the assessee's evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I(2

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 04.03.2020Pronounced: 19.03.2020

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 15/03/2019 passed by CIT(A)- 34 for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“ 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated as 02.11.2016 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle- 9(1),New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. A.O."] under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] and as upheld by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -34, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"] is bad at law and void ab initio.

2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 55,69,690/ out of contractual services expenses being contingent in nature and disallowed under the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

3. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of restructuring expenses of Rs. 1,07,75,000/ under section 37 of the Act. 4.1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of provision of warranty cost of Rs. 26,65,716 being contingent in nature. 4.2 That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of provision of warranty cost of Rs. 26,65,716/- being contingent in nature. 5.1 All the above mentioned grounds are independent and without prejudice to other; and 5.2. That the appellant carves the right to add, alter, amend and delete the ground(s) of appeal during hearing.

3.

The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Air treatment equipment and particularly air handling units. The company is also engaged in the business of system solution being operated form Kolkata office. Return declaring total loss of Rs.1,64,64,017/- was filed on 28/11/2014. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 2/11/2016 after making addition on account of contractual service expenses at Rs. 55,69,690/-, restricting expenses Rs. 1,07,75,000/- and disallowance of provision on account of liquidated damages and warranty cost at Rs.41,78,951/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no adjournment application on behalf of the assessee. The notice has been served to the assessee. Therefore, we are taking up the submissions of the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. From the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) it is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has not taken the cognizance of any evidence produced by the assessee before the revenue authorities. There is no reason given by the CIT(A) as to why the addition has to be sustained. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back all the issues contested by the assessee to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →