2014 (3) TMI 617 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT (Appeals) Decision on Tax Disallowance and Consistency Rule

Himalya International Ltd. Versus DCIT Circle-12(1), New Delhi and ITO, Ward-12(4), New Delhi Versus Himalya International Ltd.

Himalya International Ltd. Versus DCIT Circle-12(1), New Delhi and ITO, Ward-12(4), New Delhi Versus Himalya International Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of Rs. 25,85,419/- by the CIT (Appeals).2. Deletion of Rs. 4,07,92,581/- by the CIT (Appeals).3. Non-deduction of TDS by the assessee on payments made.4. Acceptance of subsidy by the Central Government department.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 25,85,419/- by the CIT (Appeals)The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 25,85,419/- out of the total expenses claimed by the assessee. The disallowance was based on the assessee's failure to provide necessary details and evidence. The CIT (Appeals) noted that expenses such as car expenses, donations, membership fees, newspaper and periodicals, and legal and professional fees were not related to sales and thus could not be allowed as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with cogent and reliable evidence.Issue 2: Deletion of Rs. 4,07,92,581/- by the CIT (Appeals)The CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 4,07,92,581/- out of the total addition of Rs. 4,33,78,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. The deletion was based on the agreement between the assessee and M/s Global Reliance Inc., which stipulated that the assessee would bear all expenses incurred out of India on account of marketing. The Tribunal noted that the expenses were certified by a CPA in the USA and that the agreement was accepted in prior assessment years. The Tribunal also observed that the Assessing Officer's findings were contradictory, as he considered gross sales realized in the USA as sales of the assessee while also treating the expenses as post-sale expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing the rule of consistency and the lack of new facts or circumstances to take a different stand.Issue 3: Non-deduction of TDS by the assessee on payments madeThe Revenue argued that the expenses claimed by the assessee were not allowable as no TDS was deducted on these payments, which were considered contractual payments. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that the duty to deduct tax at source does not arise unless the remittance contains taxable income. The Tribunal also cited the Special Bench decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT, which stated that in the case of remittance or reimbursement of expenses where no element of taxable income in India is found, the question of tax deduction at source does not arise. The Tribunal concluded that Circular No. 715 dated 8.8.1995 was not applicable to the present case.Issue 4: Acceptance of subsidy by the Central Government departmentThe Revenue contended that the CIT (Appeals) erred in accepting the assessee's version that a Central Government department granted a subsidy based on these expenses. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not dispute the procedure adopted by the assessee and its consignment agent, which included declaring the gross sales realized in the USA as turnover and claiming US expenses separately. The Tribunal observed that the assessee received a subsidy from APEDA Ministry of Commerce, which indicated that the expenses were indeed incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing the rule of consistency and the lack of new facts or circumstances to take a different stand.ConclusionThe Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals. The CIT (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 4,07,92,581/- was upheld, while the disallowance of Rs. 25,85,419/- was confirmed. The Tribunal emphasized the rule of consistency and the lack of new facts or circumstances to take a different stand. The Tribunal also held that the duty to deduct tax at source does not arise unless the remittance contains taxable income, and Circular No. 715 dated 8.8.1995 was not applicable to the present case.