TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition as alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 50,18,436/- without appreciating the evidence put forth by the appellant. 4. The authorities below erred in law as well as on facts in allocating/sustaining allocation of Research & Development Expenses incurred by the appellant amongst the different manufacturing unit of the appellant." 3. In the first two grounds of appeal assessee has challenged reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act, in the third ground assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance made towards bogus purchases and in the fourth ground confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in allocating Research and Development (hereinafter for short "R & D") expenditure incurred by the assessee amongst different manufacturing units, by the Ld.CIT(A) was challenged. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that, assessee which is in the business of manufacturing of pharma products e-filed its return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring NIL income under normal provisions of the Act and book profits at Rs..94,54,57,100/- u/s.115JB of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 25.08.2011 computing the income at NIL under normal provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel for the assessee submitted that to prove the genuineness thereof, the assessee has furnished before the Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT (A) and also before us in the paper book, ledger account of the party, purchase orders, invoices, delivery challans, debit note raised, dispatch challans and lorry receipts. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer has chosen not to enquire with any of the recipients of the material or the transporters to verify the genuineness and has also disregarded the fact that about 84% of the book profits are deductions u/s. 80IB/80IC and there is no logical reason for the assessee to indulge in a non-genuine purchases. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the following judgements submits that where assessee had submitted purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and VAT Registration of sellers as also their Income-tax Return and payment was made through cheques, impugned purchases could not be disallowed. a) PCIT v. M/s Mohammad haji Adam & Co. ITA no. 1004 of 2016 (Bombay HC). b) CIT v. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 (SC) 10. Coming to allocation of R & D expenses among various manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecting his own predecessor's opinion. It is submitted that due to the allocation, the deductions under sections 80IB & 80IC have been reduced from Rs..62.26 Crores (in the original assessment) to Rs..50.79 Crores and the details are as under: - Name of the Unit/deduction available held in Original assessment (Rs.) In reassessment proceedings (Rs.) Disallowance/ Reduction in deduction (Rs.) 80IB Units Phase I (claim 30% deduction) Total deduction was available Rs. 79.05 Cr. including both the divisions but the same was restricted to 62,25,55,342/- as per availability of total income 3,35,25,000/- The combined disallowance u/s section 80IB/80IC including is Rs. 11,46,21,342/ 80IC unit Baddi (claim 100% deduction) 47,44,09,000/- Total 62,25,55,342/- 50,79,34,000/- 11,46,21,342/- 11.1 Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer 's action is wrong on the following counts: 11.2 The assessee has been availing of the deduction since A.Y.2003-04 continuously and even in year under consideration in the original assessment order passed on 25.08.2011 the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee claiming the deduction of R & D expenses. The Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the working of qualifying undertakings. It is submitted that R&D expenses are on futuristic research and the result of research is always uncertain. None of the items of research was forming part of qualifying undertakings. None of the qualifying undertaking thus benefits from the present research. Research in the field of biotech or bulk drugs will be wholly unrelated even for theoretical reckoning, from impugned qualifying undertakings. It is submitted that details of products manufactured by the units and products on which R&D is undertaken were on records and which are completely independent from each other. It is submitted that the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited [350 ITR 366] applies squarely to the assessee's case. 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his submissions: - (i). Bush Baoke Allen India Limited v. ACIT [2005] 273 ITR 152 (Mad.) (ii). International Flavors & Fragrances India Ltd v. DCIT [142 of 2005] Madras HC. (iii). Bush Baoke Allen India Limited v. ACIT [TA 548 of 2004] (Mad.) (iv). Vanaz Engineers Limited [ITA No. 34 &35/PN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....affling and does not stand to reason. B. Reopening on the basis of insufficient and sketchy information: i) The placing of selling dealer's name in the list of suspicious dealers on the MAHAVAT website has been, erroneously or mischievously, turned by the department into the dealer being a proven Hawala Dealer, ii) The assessment order vaguely mentions, in para 4.1 that: "This list is a result of the evidenced gathered during the course of investigation, search and surveys by the Sales-tax authorities". It is not known if the selling dealers, specifically, was subjected to search or survey or not. iii) The selling dealer has not given any general statement, leave apart a statement naming the assessee. iv) The amount of alleged bogus purchases has been added to assessee's income on the basis of notice u/s 133(6) having returned by the postal authorities with a remark 'left', (para 4.4 of the assessment order). The copy of bills and challans of the selling dealer were supplied to the assessing officer and the same clearly mention the selling dealer's mobile number and mail ID. However, no efforts were made by the assessing officer to contact him. Further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Assessment Order we find that Assessing Officer treated purchases of Rs..47,79,464/-, increased by 4% VAT at Rs..1,91,178/- and further Rs..47,794/- as commission for arranging such purchases, aggregating to Rs..50,18,436/- for the reason that notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act were returned and the assessee could not produce the party for verification. We observe that the assessee furnished copies of invoices from M/s. Shah Trading Company and Dhulee Enterprise, delivery challans showing receipt of material by assessee in its locations, copies of purchase orders issued by the assessee in the name of M/s. Shah Trading Company and Dhulee Enterprise, Transport receipt with packing list showing dispatch of items to various locations of the assessee. Assessee also submitted that it had made genuine purchases from M/s. Shah Trading Company and Dhulee Enterprise and all these purchases were promotional items with assessee's brand names printed on the items for distributing to various sales representative for onward delivery to clinics, Doctors and retailers. The items purchased were portable weighing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dertakings. Further, R & D expenses are on futuristic research and the result of research is also uncertain. It was also contended that none of the items of the research was forming part of qualifying undertakings and none of the qualifying undertakings thus benefit from the present research. It was also contended that research in the field of biotech or bulk drugs will be wholly unrelated even for theoretical reckoning from impugned qualifying undertakings. Details of products manufactured by the units and products on which R & D is undertaken were on records which shows that they are completely independent from each other. Assessee placed reliance on the Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd., v. CIT [350 ITR 366] and various other decisions in support of his contention that R & D expenditure incurred in head office cannot be allocated to the units. We observe from the Assessment Order that the Assessing Officer predominantly stating that R & D expenditure incurred by the assessee is inextricably linked with the business of the assessee including the business relating to products which are manufactured in the units for which deduction u/s. 80IB and 80IC were claimed. However, nothing h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed in computing the total income of the assessee a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to 20 per cent, thereof. 10. While computing the profits and gains of the concerned undertaking, only expenses relating thereto can be deducted. In other words, the expenses must be incurred, for and on behalf of the concerned undertaking. The expenses attributable to any other unit or the head office expenses which have no relevance to the industrial undertaking, cannot be deducted in respect of the said undertaking while computing the profits and gains of the undertaking. 11. In CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579/104 Taxman 204 (SC); following question was considered by the Supreme Court (Page 581): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the receipt from the sale of import entitlements could not be included in the income of the assessee for the purpose of computing the relief under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" 12. The question, therefore, was converse to the one before us. The Supreme Court held as under (page 584): "Crude petroleum is refined to produce raw naphtha. Ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench of the Madras High Court in Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2005] 273 ITR 152 is well founded. In that case, the assessee claimed a deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I. The Assessing Officer allocated certain expenditure on research and development pertaining to the Chittoor unit. It was submitted by the assessee that the amount so included did not pertain to the Chittoor unit inasmuch as the research and development undertaken at the Madras unit had no connection with the products manufactured in the Chittoor unit. The Chennai High Court held that the question had not been dealt with by the authorities. It was held that the apportionment of the expenses on the activities of the research and development to the Chittoor unit merely on the presumption that the products manufactured at the Chittoor unit also had the benefit of the research made at the Chennai R & D department, was not proper. It was further held that the authorities had proceeded on the presumption that any technology about new flavours and essences would automatically be utilized in the Chittoor unit without examining whether the R & D carried out in Chennai s of use to the unit at Chittoor. Th....