Tribunal allows appeal for AY 2008-09 on ads, directs review on gratuity. Disallows warranty provision & additions under 115JB. Dismisses AY 2009-10 based on consistency.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for AY 2008-09 by deleting the disallowance of advertisement expenses and directing fresh consideration on the provision for gratuity. However, the disallowances of provision for warranty and consequential additions to book profit under section 115JB were upheld. The appeal for AY 2009-10 was dismissed based on the principle of consistency. The Tribunal's order was pronounced on May 22, 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of advertisement expenses.
2. Disallowance of provision for warranty.
3. Disallowance of provision for gratuity.
4. Addition of provision for warranty to book profit under section 115JB.
5. Addition of provision for gratuity to book profit under section 115JB.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Advertisement Expenses:
The assessee argued that the advertisement expenses of Rs. 33,65,007/- were related to the financial year 2007-08, despite the invoices being raised in April and May 2008. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that the invoices were dated in the subsequent financial year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting and the expenses pertained to the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the disallowance by the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) was deleted, allowing this ground of appeal.

2. Disallowance of Provision for Warranty:
The assessee contended that the provision for warranty, calculated as a percentage of turnover, was a standard business practice and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rotork Control India Pvt Ltd vs. CIT. The revenue argued that the assessee, being a trader and not a manufacturer, had no basis for such a provision. The Tribunal held that the provision did not meet the criteria of a present obligation arising from a past event and noted the lack of historical data or evidence to support the provision. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance, dismissing this ground of appeal.

3. Disallowance of Provision for Gratuity:
The assessee argued that the provision for gratuity was shown in Schedule-11 of the Profit & Loss Account, but the AO disallowed it as it was not routed through the Profit & Loss Account and treated as a balance-sheet item. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this view. The Tribunal noted that the provision for gratuity was based on actuarial valuation and should be considered. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to verify if a similar amount was claimed in the next assessment year and to allow proper opportunity for hearing. This ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

4. Addition of Provision for Warranty to Book Profit under Section 115JB:
The assessee argued that this addition was consequential to the outcome of the provision for warranty. Since the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the provision for warranty, the addition to book profit under section 115JB was upheld. This ground of appeal was dismissed.

5. Addition of Provision for Gratuity to Book Profit under Section 115JB:
The assessee contended that this addition was also consequential. The Tribunal, having restored the issue of provision for gratuity to the AO for fresh consideration, directed the AO to make consequential adjustments under section 115JB accordingly. This ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Appeal for AY 2009-10:
The grounds of appeal for AY 2009-10 were similar to those for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency:
- Ground No.1 (similar to Ground No.2 of AY 2008-09) was dismissed.
- Ground No.2 was consequential to Ground No.1 and did not require specific adjudication.
- Ground No.3 (similar to Ground No.5 of AY 2008-09) was dismissed as the issue of provision for gratuity was already directed for fresh consideration.

Conclusion:
The appeal for AY 2008-09 was partly allowed, while the appeal for AY 2009-10 was dismissed. The Tribunal's order was pronounced on May 22, 2019.

---