Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1/20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
I.T.A. No.394/2009
BETWEEN :
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11 (1), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.)
AND :
M/s ACER INDIA PVT. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, GEORGE THANGAIAH COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560075.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.01.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.774/BNG/2008, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 2005, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
2/20
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.774/BNG/2008, DATED 30.01.2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, Dr. VINEET KOTHARI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Mr. K.V.Aravind, Adv. for Appellants – Revenue. Mr. T.Suryanarayana, Adv. for Respondent – Assessee.
The Revenue has filed this appeal u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short] raising purported substantial questions of law arising from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ['Tribunal’ for short] dated 30.01.2009 in ITA 774/Bang/2008 for A.Y. 2004-05 in Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Bangalore –v- M/s Acer India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore.
Learned Tribunal following its own order for the preceding assessment year in the case of Respondent-Assessee itself, allowed the provision of
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
3/20
warranty made by the Assessee for meeting the probable costs of repairs and maintenance of computers and other hardware supplied by the Respondent- Company to its customers. The Learned Tribunal also referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IBM India Ltd –v- CIT (A) [290 itr (at) 183]. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference: “5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We are of the considered view that the assessee’s case clearly falls in line with the legal ratio set out by the various appellate decisions cited at Bar in so far as the provision for warranty stood crystallized as soon as the sale was made which a customer would like to be fulfilled within the warranty period and is at the cost of an assessee’s goodwill. Therefore the residual amount purported to have been held by the Assessing Officer as an excess provision cannot be considered as a contingent provision and not an ascertained liability. The
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
4/20
warranty period continues beyond an year which fact was rightly considered by the Id.CIT(A) confining to the various decisions such as IBM India Ltd (supra) reported in 290 ITR (AT) 183. Similar view has been taken by other co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal therefore required no further deliberation. In the light of the above, we hold the view that the decision of the Id. CIT(A) requires no further intereference on the issue. The revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.”
The Assessing Authority in the present case disallowed the entire amount of such provision of warranty of Rs.84,79,478/- [Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Four Hundred and Seventy eight only] by holding in para 3 of the impugned Assessment Order, Annexure-C dated 22.12.2006 that the system of making of the provision for warranty by the Assessee-Company was not scientific and the reversal of the provision at the year end in view of the actual claims made by the customers was huge, varying
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
5/20
from 23% to 100% and therefore, since the Assessee has not followed the scientific system of making a provision in this regard, the entire amount of provision deserves to be disallowed and the same was added back to the declared income of the Assessee. The relevant extract of the assessment order is also quoted below for ready reference: “3. During the year, the assessee had an 80IB Unit and non-80IB Unit. As seen from Schedule – K of Operating and Other Expenses of the Profit & Loss account of the 80IB Unit, a sum of Rs.6,80,59,979/- has been debited as warranty charges. Further, a sum of Rs.1,46,57,074/- has been debited as warranty charges towards the non-80IB Unit. Hence, a sum of Rs.8,27,17,053/- has been debited towards warranty charges during the year. The assessee was asked to furnish details as to what amount was actually incurred towards warranty expenses. The assessee, during the course of its submissions, has stated that a sum of Rs. 6,10,83,025/- is the actual warranty expenses incurred in the 80IB unit and a sum of
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
6/20
Rs.1,31,54,550/- is the actual warranty expenses incurred for the non-80IB Unit. The assessee, in its submissions, has also given a break-up, from which it is seen that warranty is being debited based on past experience and there is no scientific basis or method being followed by the assessee towards arriving at provision for warranty. Any provision is not allowable under the Income Tax Act. From the detailed break-up given by the assessee company, it can be seen that a sum of Rs.84,79,478/- is still in the nature of provision of account of warranty that has been debited during the year under consideration. In view of the discussion above, a sum of Rs.84,79,478/- is disallowed, being provision for warranty.”
The First Appellate Authority – CIT [Appeals], however, granted the desired relief to the Respondent- Assessee with the following observations: “3.2 In the grounds of appeal and submissions, the appellant submits that provision for warranty is allowable as a deduction. I find that there is a detailed order of
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
7/20
the ITAT, Bangalore Bench ‘B’ in ITA No.755/Bang/03 dated 2.3.2006 in the case of IBM India Ltd. in that case, the ITAT held that provision for warranty is revenue expenditure. Respectfully following the decisions of the ITAT mentioned above, it is held that the provision for warranty cannot be treated as a contingent liability. The AO is directed to allow the appellant’s claim for deduction of provision for warranty.”
The Second appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal also failed. Hence, the present appeal before us by the Revenue.
The Learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr.K.V.Aravind submitted that the Assessing Authority had followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and finding that the Respondent-Assessee company had not adopted the scientific basis for creating provision for warranty and therefore, the provision in this regard was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Authority.
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
8/20
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Assessee Mr. T.Suryanarayan, brought to our notice that the initial provision created after ascertaining the actual amount spent out of such provision, taking into account the actual complaints received and repairs and maintenance undertaken by the Respondent-Assessee for customers, consistently a reasonable amount of provision was made by the Assessee by reversing the excess provision made in each year and the very trend of reducing percentage of provision for warrantees over sales going down would show that no excess provision was created by the Assessee-Company to claim unnecessary deduction from the taxable profits of the Respondent-Company and since a consistent scientific method has been adopted by the Respondent-Assessee, the learned Assessing Authority could not have arrived at any such findings for alleged unscientific method adopted by the
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
9/20
Assessee and therefore, disallowance of the entire claim of provision in this regard of Rs.84,79,478/- [Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Four Hundred and Seventy eight only] by the Assessing Authority is wholly unjustified. He even submitted before the Court that the Assessee-Company moved for rectification of the said order claiming the alternative relief of allowing the actual expenses incurred during the year, which were in excess of the provision to the extent of Rs.84,79,478/- [Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Four Hundred and Seventy eight only] but even that was not allowed to the Assessee -Company by the Assessing Authority and thus the assessee was put to a disadvantage in both ways, which was quite illegal.
Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, we are of the clear opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal filed by the
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
10/20
Revenue. We are satisfied that the Respondent-Assessee company has consistently followed the similar practice with regard to making provision of warranty given to the customers for providing them free repairs and maintenance for the computers and hardware supplied to them, which in their ordinary course of business, the Respondent-Company gave such warrantees. The excess provision created by the Company itself has been reversed by the respondent-Company and only the provision to the extent of making an adequate provision for meeting such possible expenses for repairs and maintenance has been debited by the Assessee- Company in its books of accounts over the period of six years, the details of which are given by the Assessing Authority itself in the assessment order.
We are absolutely at a loss to understand how the Assessing Authority has found the said consistent practice of the Assessee-Company to be
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
11/20
unscientific and untenable and then proceeded to disallow the entire claim of provision made by the Assessee-Company in this regard. Neither allowing the provision made for warrantees nor the actual expenses incurred by the company to be deducted from the profits of the company during the year is absolutely arbitrary and unscientific on the part of Assessing Authority, to say the least. There was absolutely no basis for the Assessing Authority to make both the disallowances of provision for warranty as well as actual expenses at the same time in the hands of the Respondent-Assessee. In view of the comparison of actual expenses and provisions made for warranty, the details of which are given in the Assessment Order itself, we do not find any abnormal fluctuation or excess provision made by the Assessee-Company on this account.
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
12/20
We express our concern and dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Assessing Authority in the present case has very casually disallowed the said claim in the hands of the Respondent-Assessee. Moreover, when the Higher Appellate Authorities have corrected the said approach of the Assessing Authority by the First Appellate Authority allowing the appeal of the Assessee and the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, we are all the more pained to see that the Revenue still felt dissatisfied and has brought up the matter before this Court under Section 260-A of the Act without actually any substantial question of law arising in the matter. This reflects the irresponsible manner in which the Revenue Department becomes a frivolous litigant in constitutional courts, by dragging such case, wasting public time and money.
As is well settled, the appeal under Section 260-A of the Act lies before this Court only on
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
13/20
substantial questions of law. The final fact findings of the Tribunal under the Act are binding on this Court and cannot be disturbed unless they are found to be perverse on the basis of established material on record. We do not find any such case of Revenue in the present appeal.
Moreover, we are satisfied that the practice of making a provision for warranty in the present case has been found to be consistent, scientific and regular by the two Appellate Authorities below in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, discussed in detail how the accounting entries for product warranty are to be made by the Assessees. We quote below the relevant portion of the judgment for ready reference: “10. What is a provision? This is the question which needs to be answered. A provision is a
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
14/20
liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation. A provision is recognized when: (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of a past event; (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. If these conditions are not met, no provision can be recognized.
Liability is defined as a present obligation arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow from the enterprise of resources embodying economic benefits.
A past event that leads to a present obligation is called as an obligating event. The obligating event is an event that creates an obligation which results in an outflow of resources. It is only those obligations arising from past events existing independently of the future conduct of the business of the enterprise that is recognized as provision. For a liability to qualify for recognition there must be not only present obligation but also the probability of an outflow of resources to settle that obligation. Where there are a number of obligations (e.g. product
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
15/20
warranties or similar contracts) the probability that an outflow will be required in settlement, is determined by considering the said obligations as a whole. In this connection, it may be noted that in the case of a manufacture and sale of one single item the provision for warranty could constitute a contingent liability not entitled to deduction under Section 37 of the said Act. However, when there is manufacture and sale of an army of items running into thousands of units of sophisticated goods, the past event of defects being detected in some of such items leads to a present obligation which results in an enterprise having no alternative to settling that obligation. In the present case, the appellant has been manufacturing and selling Valve Actuators. They are in the business from assessment years 1983- 84 onwards. Valve Actuators are sophisticated goods. Over the years appellant has been manufacturing Valve Actuators in large numbers. The statistical data indicates that every year some of these manufactured Actuators are found to be defective. The statistical data over the years also indicates that being sophisticated item no customer is prepared to buy Valve Actuator without a warranty. Therefore, warranty became integral part of the sale price of the Valve
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
16/20
Actuator(s). In other words, warranty stood attached to the sale price of the product. These aspects are important. As stated above, obligations arising from past events have to be recognized as provisions. These past events are known as obligating events. In the present case, therefore, warranty provision needs to be recognized because the appellant is an enterprise having a present obligation as a result of past events resulting in an outflow of resources. Lastly, a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. In short, all three conditions for recognition of a provision are satisfied in this case.
In this case we are concerned with Product Warranties. To give an example of Product Warranties, a company dealing in computers gives warranty for a period of 36 months from the date of supply. The said company considers following options : (a) account for warranty expense in the year in which it is incurred; (b) it makes a provision for warranty only when the customer makes a claim; and (c) it provides for warranty at 2% of turnover of the company based on past experience (historical trend). The first option is unsustainable since it
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
17/20
would tantamount to accounting for warranty expenses on cash basis, which is prohibited both under the Companies Act as well as by the Accounting Standards which require accrual concept to be followed. In the present case, the Department is insisting on the first option which, as stated above, is erroneous as it rules out the accrual concept. The second option is also inappropriate since it does not reflect the expected warranty costs in respect of revenue already recognized (accrued). In other words, it is not based on matching concept. Under the matching concept, if revenue is recognized 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 fulfills accrual concept as well as the matching concept. For determining an appropriate historical trend, it is important that the company has a proper accounting system for capturing relationship between the nature of the
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
18/20
sales, the warranty provisions made and the actual expenses incurred against it subsequently. Thus, the decision on the warranty provision should be based on past experience of the company. A detailed assessment of the warranty provisioning policy is required particularly if the experience suggests that warranty provisions are generally reversed if they remained unutilized at the end of the period prescribed in the warranty. Therefore, the company should scrutinize the historical trend of warranty provisions made and the actual expenses incurred against it. On this basis a sensible estimate should be made. The warranty provision for the products should be based on the estimate at year end of future warranty expenses. Such estimates need reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done through a pro rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience and historical trend(s) and if the working is robust then the question of reversal in the subsequent two years, in the above example,
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
19/20
may not arise in a significant way. In our view, on the facts and circumstances of this case, provision for warranty is rightly made by the appellant-enterprise because it has incurred a present obligation as a result of past events. There is also an outflow of resources. A reliable estimate of the obligation was also possible. Therefore, the appellant has incurred a liability, on the facts and circumstances of this case, during the relevant assessment year which was entitled to deduction under Section 37 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, all the three conditions for recognizing a liability for the purposes of provisioning stands satisfied in this case. It is important to note that there are four important aspects of provisioning. They are - provisioning which relates to present obligation, it arises out of obligating events, it involves outflow of resources and lastly it involves reliable estimation of obligation. Keeping in mind all the four aspects, we are of the view that the High Court should not to have interfered with the decision of the Tribunal in this case.”
Date of Judgment 25-06-2018, ITA No.394/2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
20/20
We are, therefore, satisfied that both the Appellate Authorities below were justified in returning the proper findings of facts on the relevant material before them and have rightly found that the provisions of warranty made by the Respondent-Assessee Company was on the basis of the scientific and consistent method and therefore, the present appeal of the Revenue does not give rise to any substantial question of law and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
ln.