AO's inadequate inquiry on Rs 340.45 crores expenditure upheld CIT's revision u/s 263 for erroneous revenue treatment

ITAT Hyderabad upheld CIT's revision u/s 263 regarding termination charges and liquidated damages. The tribunal found AO failed to conduct proper inquiry before allowing expenditure as revenue, making the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Rs. 340.45 crores paid under Asset Purchase Agreement was held as capital expenditure, not termination charges. Rs. 6.19 crores liquidated damages paid to protect another entity's business interests was disallowed u/s 37 as not incurred wholly and exclusively for assessee's business purpose. Appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Invocation of Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).
2. Disallowance of termination charges of Rs. 340.45 crores paid to Pfizer.
3. Disallowance of liquidated damages of Rs. 6.19 crores paid to Fresenius.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT):

The assessee contended that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) had already made due inquiries and verifications. The assessee provided all requisite documents and explanations during the assessment proceedings, and the AO had taken a plausible view that the expenditures were revenue in nature. The assessee cited various case laws, including the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Limited v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), to support their argument that an assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 if the AO has adopted one of the possible views.

The Department argued that the AO did not consider various factors to determine whether the expenditure was capital or revenue and did not clearly state who should claim the expenditure. The Department cited the Supreme Court's decision in Paville Projects Private Limited (2023) 453 ITR 447 (SC) to argue that an erroneous assessment resulting in a loss of revenue is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that there was a lack of inquiry by the AO on several important aspects and that the explanation 2 to Section 263, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, was applicable. The Tribunal concluded that the invocation of Section 263 by the PCIT was justified due to the lack of proper inquiry by the AO.

2. Disallowance of Termination Charges of Rs. 340.45 Crores Paid to Pfizer:

The assessee argued that the termination charges paid to Pfizer were towards the termination of marketing and distribution rights and did not result in the transfer or creation of any new asset. The assessee contended that the termination of the agreement did not provide any new rights to ASPL and should be considered as revenue expenditure.

The Department argued that the termination of the agreement was titled as an "Asset Purchase Agreement" and that the amount paid was in the nature of capital expenditure. The Department also questioned how rights could be transferred to Mylan Ireland without acquiring any rights/assets.

The Tribunal examined the "Asset Purchase Agreement" and observed that it was indeed an agreement for the purchase of assets. The Tribunal concluded that the charges of Rs. 340.45 crores paid by ASPL to Pfizer were in the nature of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure.

3. Disallowance of Liquidated Damages of Rs. 6.19 Crores Paid to Fresenius:

The assessee argued that the liquidated damages paid to Fresenius were revenue expenditures as they did not result in any benefit of enduring nature and were incurred for terminating the licensing and distribution agreement.

The Department argued that the termination of the agreement was in the business interest of MLL, not ASPL, and thus the expenditure did not relate to the business needs of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the termination of the agreement with Fresenius was to protect the business interest of MLL and not ASPL. The Tribunal concluded that the liquidated damages paid by ASPL to Fresenius were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business and thus could not be allowed as an expenditure under Section 37 of the Act.

Summary:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 and the disallowance of both the termination charges paid to Pfizer and the liquidated damages paid to Fresenius. The Tribunal concluded that both expenditures were not allowable as revenue expenditures under the Income Tax Act.

---