THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2623/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 December 2017AY 2012-133 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, which had held that in the absence of material change, the Revenue should not have disallowed the claim of service charges in a subsequent assessment year when it was allowed in preceding years. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of an addition made on account of disallowance of service charges paid to a related entity. The assessee argued that the issue was settled in their favour by the Gujarat High Court in their own case.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of service charges paid to a related entity under Section 40A(2) was justified in the absence of any material change from preceding assessment years where such claims were allowed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(2)(a),Section 40A(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Pathak, Joint CIT
For Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar with Parin Shah
Hearing: 27.11.2017Pronounced: 18.12.2017

ITA No.2623/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2623/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Gujarat Gas Financial Services Ltd., Gandhinagar Circle, 2, Shantisadan Society, Gandhinagar. Near Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. [PAN – AAACG 5584 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri O.P. Pathak, Joint CIT Respondent by : Shri S.N. Soparkar with Parin Shah Date of hearing : 27.11.2017 Date of pronouncement : 18.12.2017 O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 30.06.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The only grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.32,86,103/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance under section 40A(2)(a) read with section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) in respect of the service charges paid to Gujarat Gas Company Limited.

3.

At the very outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is now well settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in assessee’s own case in Tax Appal No.428 of 2015.

4.

Learned Departmental Representative fairly conceded to this.

5.

We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below quashing the issue. We find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in assessee’s own

ITA No.2623/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 2 of 3 case in Tax Appeal No.428 of 2015 was seized with the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.7.70 crores made on account of disallowance u/s.40A(2)(b) r.w.s. 40A(2)(a) of the Act, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record?”

6.

The relevant finding of Hon’ble High Court reads as under :-

“10. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 11. It would thus be clear from the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings and each assessment year is considered as a separate unit. Still, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of any material or substantial change justifying the revenue to take a different view than the view it had taken in the preceding assessment years, it should not have reopened the issue in the subsequent assessment year. In the case on hand also, there cannot be any avil that, strictly speaking, the principle of res judicata is applicable to income tax proceedings. Still, however, the revenue had allowed deduction of service charges from the income to assess the income tax of the respondent in the preceding year. In absence of any material change, it could not have disallowed the claim of service charges under section 40(A) of the Act. In the backdrop of these facts, the arguments canvassed by learned Senior Counsel Mr. M.R. Bhatt cannot be countenanced. 14. We are in agreement with the observations made by the Tribunal as well as the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of (1) Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Enviro Control Associated (P) Ltd., as reported at (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 291 (Gujarat); (2) Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Ashok J Patel, as reported at (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 227 (Gujarat) and (3) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. as reported as (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom). 15. It is pertinent to note that so far as the Circular dated 6.7.1968 is concerned, it makes clear that the provisions under section 40A(2) and particularly with regard to the transaction between the relatives and associates is concerned, the same shall be treated as bona fide case unless the officer finds it that one of them is trying to evade payment of tax. 16. Considering the overall facts of the case and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the appeals are meritless and the same deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.”

ITA No.2623/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 3 of 3 7. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat (supra), we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). Appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.

8.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on this 18th day of December, 2017)

Sd/- Sd/- Rajpal Yadav N.K. Billaiya (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 18th day of December, 2017 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order E COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 40A(2)(a)

All 266 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →