TTK PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, while reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has proceeded on irrelevant considerations while ignoring the relevant aspects of the matter, including the fact that on introduction of new range of products, past data may not be available?

We have heard Dr. R.B. Krishna, learned Advocate for the assessee and Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue.

Brief facts of the case are, assessee is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of sale of pressure cookers and cookware. For A.Y1.

For A.Y. 2012-13 (ITA No.737/2018), the assessee filed its return of Income declaring an income of Rs.142,02,31,210/-. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('1961 Act' for short) and vide Assessment order dated 13.03.2015 disallowed the provision at

For A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No.738/2018), the assessee filed its return of Income declaring an income of Rs.146,90,40,340/- and debited Rs.3,82,38,767/- as warranty provisions. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('1961 Act' for short) and vide Assessment order dated 28.03.2016 disallowed the provision. On appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT(A) vide order dated 08.03.2017, allowed the provision.

On further appeal by the Revenue, the ITAT4, C-Bench, vide common order dated 03.08.2018 set-aside the order passed by the CIT(A)

Dr. Krishna, for the assessee submitted that in addition to manufacture and sale of pressure cookers and cookware, assessee also markets kitchen home appliances, which carry a warranty for repair and replacements. Assessee has also exported 'Customer designed pressure cookers' to UK. Assessee has also introduced new kitchen home appliances every year. In 2009-10, 26 new products were launched. In 2010-11, 39 new products were launched and in 2011-12, 52 new products were launched. Being new products, assessee expected higher warranty claims. Hence, a provision for warranty at the rate of 1% turnover with respect to turnover in UK market and sales of all electrical appliances was made.

Dr. Krishna urged that the law on the point is settled and the CIT(A) applying the correct position of law granted relief to the assessee. The ITAT, without proper application of mind has disallowed the provision on the ground that the past event should be the basis for making provision; that assessee is in the business for a long time and ought to have demonstrated that the provision of 1% for anticipated liability on account of warranty claims is based on its own past experience.

Dr. Krishna contended that in respect of new kitchen appliances, there will be no past experience. He submitted that the CIT(A), while considering the appeal against the order passed by the AO for the A.Y. 2011-12, has recorded a finding of fact in para 6.9 of his order that the assessee had incurred warranty expenses for the A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 to an extent of Rs.2,86,91,966/- and the same have been accounted against the provision

Shri. Krishna has placed reliance on Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Chennai5.

Shri. Sanmathi for the Revenue argued opposing the appeal and submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal by considering the facts in assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. In substance, he submitted that the provision made for items other than pressure cookers and cookware, is not based on the warranty claims of previous years, Hence, the conditions prescribed in Rotork Controls,

We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

In Rotork Controls, it is held that a provision is a liability, which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation and it is recognized when: (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as result of past event; (b) it is probable and an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation.

Further, illustration of a Company dealing with Computers has been given in para 27. Three

The second option is also inappropriate since it does not reflect the expected warranty costs in respect of revenue already recognised (accrued). In other words, it is not based on matching concept. Under the matching concept, if revenue is recognised the cost incurred to earn that revenue including warranty costs has to be fully provided for. When valve actuators are sold and the warranty costs are an integral part of that sale price then the appellant has to provide for such warranty costs in its account for the relevant year, otherwise the matching concept fails. In such a case the second option is also inappropriate.

Under the circumstances, the third option is most appropriate because it fulfils accrual concept as well as the matching concept. ………….."

Assessee's case is, it has been in the business of manufacture and sale of pressure cooker and cookware. It also trades in kitchen home appliances which carry warranty for repair and replacements. Most markets for pressure cookers had already matured. Customer designed pressure cookers were exported to UK market for the first time and therefore assessee expected high warranty claims. Assessee claims to have introduced 26 new kitchen wares in 2009-10, 39 new products in 2010- 11 and 53 products in 2011-12.

The Commissioner(Appeals) has recorded a finding that the assessee had incurred warranty expenses towards warranty claims during financial years 2011-12, 2012-13 to an extent of Rs.2.86 Crores and the same had been accounted against the provision made for warranty. He has also recorded that according to the assessee it had incurred

It is not in dispute that assessee is in the business of manufacture and sale of pressure cookers and kitchen ware. It has exported customer designed pressure cookers and kitchen ware to a new market in England. Unless these products carry warranty, particularly when the product is an imported one, the Customers will not choose to purchase such products unless it is covered with warranty. Based on its past experience, assessee has made provision of 1% of the sales value towards warranty and replacement expenses. As against provision of Rs.2.81 Crores for the year 2011-12, the warranty expenses incurred during the financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14 is Rs.2.86 Crores, which is more than the provision made.

The ITAT has noted in para 20 of its order that the CIT(A) had considered warranty expenses for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15, whereas, he ought to have considered the past event while considering the provision made by the assessee. A careful perusal of CIT(A)'s order shows that CIT(A) in para 6.9 has considered the warranty claims for financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13 (A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14). Therefore, the finding recorded by the ITAT is factually incorrect. We may also record that the relevant Assessment Years under consideration is, 2011-12 to 2013-14. The warranty claims if any, will be received either in that year or subsequent years. The CIT(A) has recorded the factual aspect that assessee had incurred warranty expenses of Rs.2.86 Crores for the claims during the financial years 2011- 12 and 2012-13. The warranty claims said to have been discharged for the subsequent years namely A.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-16 are also much higher and to

In para 27 of Rotork Controls, extracted hereinabove, it is held that when warranty costs are integral part of the sale price, then assessee has to provide for such warranty costs in its account for the relevant year, otherwise the matching concept fails.

The CIT(A) has passed a detailed order by recording the factual aspect of the case and considering the authorities on the point, where as, the ITAT has considered expenses incurred in incorrect A.Ys. Further, in our view, the ITAT has misconstrued the law laid down in Rotork.

In view of undisputed facts that the exported products were pressure cookers and the kitchen ware and the claims received for the A.Y. in question, is in excess of the provision made, in our

In view of above discussion, these appeals merit consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER