2015 (9) TMI 1060 - HC - Income Tax

Admission of additional evidence - Held that - It is seen that before the CIT (A), the Assessee did produce the details on the basis of which the CIT (A) reduced the disallowance proportionate to the expenditure incurred on behalf of the sister concerns both as regards the sales and distribution expenses and administrative expenses. These details have been set out in the order of the CIT (A). The ITAT has also concurred with the finding of the CIT (A). As regards the plea concerning Rule 46 A of the IT Rules, the Court finds that no such point was urged by the Revenue before the ITAT. The Court does not propose to permit the Revenue to urge such question for the first time in this Court. Nothing has been shown to the Court to persuade the Court to conclude that the impugned order of the ITAT is perverse. The findings of both the CIT (A) and the ITAT turned on facts. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of sales and distribution expenses incurred on behalf of sister concerns.
2. Disallowance of administrative expenses for sister concerns.
3. Disallowance of depreciation due to non-use of assets.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the disallowance of a sum of &8377; 31,39,625 incurred as sales and distribution expenses by the Assessee on behalf of sister concerns. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount, but the CIT (A) reduced the disallowance proportionate to the expenditure incurred for sister concerns. The ITAT also agreed with the CIT (A) on this matter. The Court noted that the Revenue did not raise the issue of Rule 46 A of the IT Rules before the ITAT, and thus, it cannot be raised for the first time in Court.

2. The second issue involves the disallowance of &8377; 22,43,445 as administrative expenses for the businesses of sister concerns. Similar to the first issue, the CIT (A) reduced the disallowance based on the details provided by the Assessee. The ITAT upheld this decision, and the Court found no reason to consider the ITAT's order as perverse. The findings of both the CIT (A) and the ITAT were based on facts, and no substantial question of law was found to arise in this case.

3. The third issue relates to the disallowance of depreciation amounting to &8377; 3,11,610 due to non-use of assets by the Assessee. The Court observed that there was no evidence presented to suggest that the impugned order of the ITAT was perverse. Both the CIT (A) and the ITAT based their decisions on factual findings, and the Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law in the present case. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.