Appeal Allowed for Registered Society Regarding GTD Expenses & Assessment Error

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, a registered society, in a case involving the allowability of Global Trade Development (GTD) expenses and a computation error in the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the GTD expenses were aimed at benefiting the IT industry, supported by government grants, and had been consistently allowed in other years. It also noted a violation of principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the computational error. The impugned order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was quashed, and the appeal was allowed on 17.05.2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of Global Trade Development (GTD) expenses.
2. Computation error in the assessment order.
3. Adequacy of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer (A.O).
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowability of Global Trade Development (GTD) Expenses:
The assessee, a registered society, incurred GTD expenses to promote the Indian IT/BPO industry globally. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] found that these expenses were not in line with the society's aims and objects, and the A.O did not conduct a proper enquiry. However, the assessee argued that these expenses were in furtherance of its objectives and had been allowed in previous and subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the GTD expenses were aimed at benefiting the IT industry as a whole, supported by government grants, and had been consistently allowed in other years. The Tribunal found it difficult to say that the allowance of such expenses was unsustainable.

2. Computation Error in the Assessment Order:
The CIT(E) observed a computational error in the assessment order regarding the denial of exemption of Rs. 8,32,29,451/- on the principle of mutuality. The assessee contended that it was not given an opportunity to be heard on this issue, and the notice issued under Section 263 did not mention this computational error. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not given the assessee an opportunity to explain this aspect, violating the principles of natural justice.

3. Adequacy of Enquiry Conducted by the Assessing Officer (A.O):
The CIT(E) argued that the A.O failed to make necessary enquiries regarding the admissibility of GTD expenses. The Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in cases like ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. and PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that if the CIT(E) believes there was inadequate enquiry, they must conduct an independent enquiry to establish that the assessment order was erroneous. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not undertake such an enquiry, making it difficult to sustain the impugned order regarding GTD expenses.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee argued that it was not given an opportunity to be heard on the computational error aspect, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in CIT(A) Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, which held that failure to provide an opportunity to be heard renders the revisional order legally fragile. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained due to this violation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, finding that the CIT(E) did not conduct the necessary enquiry to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 17.05.2019.

---