RAYBAN SUN OPTICS INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 672/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 March 2017AY 2009-104 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of expenditure was already decided in the first round of appeal, where the addition made in the hands of the assessee was deleted. This decision was not reversed by any higher forum.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added back an amount of Rs. 952,719 to the returned income, considering it as an expense incurred by the appellant. The appellant contended that this expense was incurred by an ex-employee.

What were the issues?

Whether an expenditure incurred by an ex-employee can be added back to the assessee's income when the issue has already been decided in favor of the assessee in a previous round.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI

Before: MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Karhail, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR
Hearing: 19.11.2019

आदेश/ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

1.

The present appeal is listed for hearing in order to adjudicate the ground of appeal no. 4 raised in the original ground of appeal.

2.

The said ground of appeal reads as under:

“4. That the AO/DRP erred in facts and in law, in adding back an amount of Rs.952,719 to the returned income of the Appellant by in appropriately considering the same as an expense incurred by the Appellant, whereas the same was incurred by an ex- employee of the Appellant.” . 3. The learned AR for the assessee took us through the list of dates and events and pointed out that the said issue was decided by the Tribunal in the first round itself vide order dated 15th April, 2014.

Thereafter, various proceedings were initiated against the first issue of transfer pricing adjustment, but this issue was not challenged before the Hon’ble High Court and when the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal, then the issue which needed adjudication was transfer pricing adjustment with respect to AMP expenses. He stated that in the second round, the Tribunal vide order dated 24th March, 2017, has set aside the issue of AMP expenses to the file of the AO/TPO for de novo adjudication.

It was pointed out by the learned AR for the assessee that on 1st August, 2017, the Department filed Miscellaneous Application against the order dated 24.03.2017 (second round) on the ground that corporate issue was not adjudicated by the Tribunal. He further pointed out that the Tribunal vide order dated 24th March, 2019, allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue and recalled the Ground No. 4, against which, the assessee has filed the Miscellaneous Application.

4.

On perusal of the record and after hearing both the Authorized Representatives, we find that the issue of corporate issue of disallowances of expenditure was decided by the Tribunal in the first round itself vide para 8 at page 5 of the order dated 15th April, 2014. The addition made in the hands of the assessee was deleted by the Tribunal. The said order has not been reversed by the higher forum. The department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and the only issue raised was in relation to AMP expenditure and its adjustment. The same is clear from the order of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 15th May, 2017, in wherein the issue of AMP expenditure has been remitted back to the AO/TPO to decide in light with the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsion Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd., [2015] 374 ITR 118 (Del.). It is the case of both the authorized representatives before us that the matter was adjudicated by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.04.2014. Once the issue have already been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 15th April, 2014, there is no merit in raising the aforesaid issue again. Hence, we find no merit in the reposting of the appeal on the aforesaid issue before the Tribunal and the same is filed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of November, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →