2014 (11) TMI 798 - HC - Income Tax

Allowability of service charges including travelling expenses Held that - Assessee was right in the complaint that it made - Even on that occasion, the Tribunal had chosen to restore the claim/disallowance in relation to service charges to the file of the AO for a decision afresh and in accordance with law assessee pointed out that the foundation or basis on which the Tribunal proceeded earlier was erroneous inasmuch as there was adequate and enough material on record to deal with and decide the claim in relation to service charges - Therefore, the apparent mistake was required to be corrected by the Tribunal itself - the Tribunal ought to have adjudicated upon the issues and decide any specific issues if they were found to be necessary - The Tribunal has not considered the specific issues raised in the appeal and had passed an order of remand to the AO without adverting to any of the materials that were already before it thus, the matter was restored to the file of the Tribunal and for a decision in accordance with law Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of service charges including traveling expenses.
2. Tribunal's erroneous remand to the Assessing Officer.
3. Tribunal's failure to consider existing evidence and previous findings.
4. Tribunal's refusal to correct an apparent mistake.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Service Charges Including Traveling Expenses:
The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, challenged the disallowance of service charges, including traveling expenses, for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had enhanced the disallowance to 25%, which was contested by the petitioner. The Tribunal, however, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer, which the petitioner argued was unnecessary given the existing evidence.

2. Tribunal's Erroneous Remand to the Assessing Officer:
The Tribunal remanded the issue of service charges back to the Assessing Officer, stating that the petitioner had not furnished full details except for the service agreement and debit notes. The petitioner contended that this was an error since the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had already considered the remand report from the Assessing Officer and had sufficient material to decide the matter.

3. Tribunal's Failure to Consider Existing Evidence and Previous Findings:
The petitioner pointed out that the Tribunal failed to consider the voluminous evidence already presented before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's decision to remand was seen as ignoring the findings and evidence from previous assessment years, particularly 1997-98, which had been decided in favor of the petitioner.

4. Tribunal's Refusal to Correct an Apparent Mistake:
The petitioner filed a Misc. Application to correct the Tribunal's apparent mistake, arguing that the Tribunal should have decided the issue based on the available material rather than remanding it. The Tribunal's refusal to correct this mistake was seen as a failure to perform its duty as the last fact-finding authority.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order on the Misc. Application and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the claim of service charges, including traveling expenses, on its merits. The Tribunal was instructed to decide the issue afresh without being influenced by its previous order or the order on the rectification application. The Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to address all factual and legal issues thoroughly and avoid unnecessary remands, which cause serious prejudice to the parties involved. The Rule was made absolute with no orders as to costs.