2025 (6) TMI 1133 - AT - Income Tax

CPC's adjustment under section 143(1)(a) computing tax at 30% instead of 25% unjustified without hearing opportunity

DCIT, Circle 1 (1), Pune Versus Grihum Housing Finance Limited And Grihum Housing Finance Limited Versus ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar

ITAT PUNE held that CPC's adjustment under section 143(1)(a) computing tax at 30% instead of 25% was unjustified. The assessee argued turnover was below ... Adjustment made by the CPC u/s 143(1)(a) - Tax computed @ 30% as against 25% computed by the assessee - assessee's argument that since the turnover of the assessee company is less than Rs. 250 crore, therefore, the CPC was not justified in computing the tax rate at 30% - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Income Tax Act has not defined the term ‘turnover’. Section 2(91) of the Companies Act defines the term ‘turnover’ as the gross amount of revenue recognised in the profit and loss account from the sale, supply, or distribution of goods or on account of services rendered, or both, by a company during a financial year. However, the guidance note of the tax audit issued by the ICAI states that the term ‘gross receipts’ includes all the receipts arising from carrying on of the business which will normally be assessable as business income under the Act after there is a specific exclusion with respect to interest income (unless assessable as business income) and write back of amounts payable to creditors and/or provisions for expenses or taxes no longer required. A perusal from the details furnished by the assessee shows that the issue of gross turnover i.e. as to whether the service tax input credit, interest on income tax refund and recovery of bad debts recovered in earlier years which the assessee has shown as other income will form part of gross turnover is a highly debatable issue. Further, before making the adjustment, the CPC had not provided any opportunity of being heard to the assessee which in our opinion is in violation of first proviso to section 143(1) of the Act. We find a somewhat identical issue had come up in the case of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 1716 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Further, it has been held in various decisions that a debatable claim cannot be disallowed by the CPC by way of an intimation u/s 143(1)(a). Thus, we hold that the CPC was not justified in computing the tax at 30% as against 25% on a debatable issue and that too, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed. The primary legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this matter are:1. Whether the tax rate applicable to the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 should be 25% or 30%, based on the turnover threshold of Rs. 250 crore for the previous year 2016-17.2. Whether certain receipts classified as 'Other Income', specifically recovery of bad debts written off and service tax input credit, should be included in the computation of total turnover/gross receipts for determining the applicable tax rate.3. Whether the adjustment made by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, increasing the tax rate from 25% to 30% without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, is valid and within the scope of section 143(1).4. The applicability and interpretation of judicial precedents, particularly the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in Shriram Properties Ltd. vs. ADIT, in relation to the inclusion or exclusion of certain income items from turnover for tax rate determination.5. Whether the CPC's action of modifying the tax rate on a debatable issue without hearing the assessee violates principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Applicability of Tax Rate Based on Turnover ThresholdThe legal framework governing the applicable tax rate is derived from the Finance Act, 2018, which provides a concessional tax rate of 25% for companies whose turnover in the previous year 2016-17 does not exceed Rs. 250 crore, and a higher rate of 30% otherwise. The Income Tax Act, 1961, however, does not define the term 'turnover' for this purpose.The assessee contended that the turnover should be computed as per the definition in section 2(91) of the Companies Act, 2013, which defines turnover as the gross amount of revenue recognized in the profit and loss account from the sale, supply, or distribution of goods or services. The audited financial statements showed revenue from operations at Rs. 248.61 crore, below the Rs. 250 crore threshold. The assessee argued that the CPC's inclusion of other income items to push the turnover above Rs. 250 crore was incorrect.The Tribunal noted that the term 'turnover' is not defined in the Income Tax Act and that the tax audit guidance by ICAI considers 'gross receipts' as all receipts arising from business operations assessable as business income, with specific exclusions. The question whether items such as service tax input credit and recovery of bad debts, classified as 'Other Income', should be included in turnover is a debatable issue.The Tribunal observed that the CPC's adjustment increasing the tax rate to 30% was based on total revenue of Rs. 251.04 crore as per audited accounts, which included other income items. However, the assessee's turnover from core business operations was below the threshold.2. Inclusion of 'Other Income' Items in TurnoverThe Revenue argued that recovery of bad debts written off and service tax input credit are directly related to business operations and thus must be included in turnover. The assessee disputed this, asserting these items are not part of operational revenue and should not be considered for tax rate determination.The Tribunal examined the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in Shriram Properties Ltd. vs. ADIT, which held that 'other income' items such as guarantee commission, fair value gains on financial instruments, and gains on extinguishment of financial liabilities are not directly linked to business activities and should be excluded from turnover for concessional tax rate applicability.The Tribunal found that whether such items fall within turnover is a debatable question and cannot be conclusively settled by the CPC without due process.3. Validity of CPC's Adjustment under Section 143(1)The CPC made the adjustment by revising the tax rate from 25% to 30% under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, which allows limited adjustments based on prima facie admissibility or inadmissibility of claims without detailed enquiry. The assessee contended that the adjustment was beyond the scope of section 143(1) as the issue was debatable and no opportunity of hearing was provided, violating the first proviso to section 143(1).The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that debatable claims cannot be disallowed by way of intimation under section 143(1)(a) without hearing the assessee. The Court emphasized that 'prima facie inadmissible' means a claim that does not require further inquiry before disallowance; debatable claims require opportunity to be heard.The Tribunal also noted that the CPC did not provide any hearing opportunity before making the adjustment, which is contrary to the statutory requirement and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal concluded that the CPC's action was not justified.4. Interpretation of Precedents and Legal PrinciplesThe Tribunal considered the decision of the Chennai Bench in Shriram Properties Ltd. vs. ADIT, which clarified that only income directly linked to core business operations should be included in turnover for concessional tax rate applicability. The Revenue's reliance on this decision was found misplaced as the decision supports exclusion of certain 'other income' items, which aligns with the assessee's contention.The Tribunal also reviewed various other judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee supporting the proposition that debatable issues cannot be resolved by CPC adjustments under section 143(1) without hearing, and that the term 'turnover' should be construed in line with accounting and statutory definitions.5. Application of Law to Facts and ConclusionApplying the above principles, the Tribunal found that the turnover from core business operations was below Rs. 250 crore, and the inclusion of 'other income' items to cross the threshold was a debatable issue requiring detailed examination and opportunity of hearing. The CPC's adjustment to tax rate at 30% without hearing was not permissible under section 143(1) and violated natural justice.Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's Cross Objection and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Since the assessee succeeded on this fundamental legal issue, the Tribunal held the Revenue's other grounds to be academic and did not adjudicate them.Significant Holdings'In cases of debatable issues, the CPC cannot make any adjustment / disallowance by way of any intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act.''The term 'turnover' is not defined in the Income Tax Act, and guidance from the Companies Act and ICAI tax audit notes must be considered; items not directly linked to core business operations should be excluded from turnover for concessional tax rate applicability.''The CPC's adjustment of tax rate from 25% to 30% without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee is in violation of the first proviso to section 143(1) of the Act and principles of natural justice, rendering the intimation invalid.''The decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in Shriram Properties Ltd. vs. ADIT supports exclusion of certain 'other income' items from turnover for determining concessional tax rate eligibility.''Where a claim is debatable and based on judicial precedents, it cannot be disallowed by way of intimation under section 143(1)(a) without hearing the assessee.''The adjustment made by the CPC increasing the tax rate to 30% on the basis of turnover exceeding Rs. 250 crore is not sustainable in law in absence of proper opportunity to the assessee and on a debatable issue.'