2025 (9) TMI 630 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment addition disallowed where invoice variation arose from differing 'turnover' definitions; cost-to-cost reimbursements not assessable as income

Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax-6 (1) (1), Mumbai Versus Equifax Software Systems Pvt Ltd.

ITAT MUMBAI - AT upheld the CIT(A) order in favour of the assessee, rejecting AO's addition treating ECIS's invoice-related variation as undisclosed ... Difference of expenses in the books of ECIS in relation to the invoices raised to assessee and the turnover of ECIS as income of the assessee - AO considered the transaction as undeclared transaction and added back to the total income of the assessee - CIT(A) had not received any remand report from the Ld. AO and the appeal attained finality, in favour of the assessee HELD THAT:- We note that the variation in turnover arises due to the differing definitions of 'turnover' under the Income-tax Act and the Service Tax Act. Assessee reimbursed third-party expenses to ECIS on a cost-to-cost basis, resulting in no impact on either the debit or credit sides. Consequently, there was no effect on the Profit and Loss (P&L) Account, which remained neutral. Neither the recovery was reflected in the turnover nor were the third-party expenses charged to the P&L Account. The discrepancy arises because the assessee followed Indian Accounting Standard-1 (IAS-1), whereas the service tax authorities considered these transactions under the definition of 'turnover' as per the Service Tax Act. The assessee’s books were audited under Section 44B of the Act, but the inclusion of these transactions as 'turnover' under the Service Tax Act caused the variation in the reported turnover of ECIS. Upon review, we find no infirmity in the impugned appeal order. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether amounts recovered on a cost-to-cost basis from a related enterprise, which are netted off against corresponding expenses in the taxpayer's books and therefore do not affect Profit & Loss, constitute taxable income when the recipient (related enterprise) records the amounts in its service-tax turnover. 2. Whether a difference between turnover as per service-tax returns of one entity and income as per Profit & Loss account of another entity can justify an addition to the latter's income where accounting treatment is governed by Indian Accounting Standard-1 and service-tax definitions of 'turnover' differ from income-tax concepts. 3. Whether the Assessing Officer's exercise of invoking counterpart's service-tax disclosures to treat unreconciled differences as unexplained income is sustainable in absence of evidence of revenue leakage or substantive misstatement in the assessee's books. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Taxability of cost-to-cost reimbursements netted in books Legal framework: Income is chargeable under the Income-tax Act when amounts constitute income according to accounting and tax recognition principles; service-tax regime separately defines 'turnover' for levy/return purposes. Indian Accounting Standard-1 (Ind AS-1) and accrual accounting principles govern recognition in financial statements. Precedent treatment: No prior authorities were cited or applied by the Tribunal or lower authority in the reasoning; the decision analyses the facts against accounting and tax law principles rather than relying on case law. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that third-party costs were incurred by the taxpayer and recovered from the related enterprise on a strict cost-to-cost basis. Those recoveries were recorded as netted against the specific expense items in the taxpayer's ledgers and not shown as revenue in turnover nor charged to P&L, producing a nil effect on profit. The taxpayer followed Ind AS-1 (Para 32) and accrual basis of accounting; service tax consequences (charging service tax and claiming/adjusting cenvat/input credit) were separately accounted for so that there was no net tax leakage. Given that the receipts merely reimbursed costs and produced no profit element in the taxpayer's accounts, they did not constitute income for income-tax purposes. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - cost-to-cost reimbursements, properly netted in the taxpayer's books and not affecting P&L, do not constitute taxable income absent evidence of mark-up or profit element. This principle forms the operative ratio of the decision. Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable on the ground that reimbursements constituted income; deletion of the addition is warranted. Issue 2 - Effect of differing definitions of 'turnover' under service-tax law and income-tax/accounting treatment Legal framework: Service-tax/statutory definitions of 'turnover' may include items that are treated differently for accounting or income-tax recognition; accounting standards (Ind AS-1) determine presentation and recognition in financial statements; income-tax assessment must respect accounting recognition unless there is evidence to treat differently under tax law. Precedent treatment: No contrary authorities were applied; the Tribunal relied on the accepted distinction between statutory turnover concepts and accounting/income recognition. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the variation between ECIS's service-tax turnover and the taxpayer's P&L arises from different conceptual bases: service-tax returns may capture reimbursements as part of turnover for levy/credit purposes, whereas the taxpayer, following Ind AS-1 and accrual accounting, legitimately netted reimbursements against expenses so as not to show them as revenue. The Tribunal further noted that service-tax cash/credit flows (charging and claiming input credits) demonstrated proper compliance and no leakage of government revenue. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a discrepancy between another entity's service-tax turnover and a taxpayer's P&L does not, by itself, establish taxable income where accounting standards justify exclusion from turnover and there is no evidence of profit realized or revenue leakage. Conclusion: The Assessing Officer could not validly treat the difference as the taxpayer's unexplained income solely because the related entity included reimbursements in its service-tax turnover; the appellate deletion was correct. Issue 3 - Use of counterpart's records and burden of proof for additions based on unexplained differences Legal framework: Additions based on unexplained income require nexus and credible evidence that the taxpayer realized income; reliance on third-party records may inform enquiries but cannot supplant direct evidence in the taxpayer's books when those books show legitimate accounting treatment. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal treated the AO's reliance on counterpart's turnover figures as insufficient in absence of substantiation that reimbursements represented profit or were concealed. Interpretation and reasoning: The AO's addition emanated from observing a difference between ECIS's service-tax turnover and its P&L; however, the taxpayer provided supporting documentation (debit notes/invoices, ledgers) demonstrating the nature of the recoveries and accounting treatment. The Tribunal found no substantial arguments or corroborative evidence in the assessment order that the transactions represented income or that there was any omission in the taxpayer's returns. The service-tax mechanism (charging tax and availing/adjusting credits) further negated any suggestion of revenue leakage. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an assessing authority cannot make additions solely on the basis of discrepancies in a related entity's statutory returns without establishing that the taxpayer derived assessable income; this is binding insofar as the facts are analogous. Obiter - procedural observations regarding remand proceedings (see cross-reference) are not central to the taxability question. Conclusion: The AO's invocation of the other entity's service-tax figures to make an addition to the taxpayer's income was unsustainable; deletion was appropriate. Procedural note (cross-reference to Issue 3) Interpretation and reasoning: The appellate record reflects that remand proceedings were initiated but the Assessing Officer's remand report was not furnished to the appellate authority, and notices were served at a wrong address before being corrected. The appellate authority proceeded and the appeal attained finality in favour of the taxpayer. While the Tribunal did not base its decision primarily on procedural infirmity, the absence of a remand report and the failure to substantiate the addition reinforced the view that the addition lacked foundation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - procedural lapses reinforced the insufficiency of the AO's case but are not the principal ground for the tax conclusion. Conclusion: Even absent reliance on procedural deficiencies, the substantive accounting and tax analysis support dismissal of the revenue's appeal.