2019 (4) TMI 1775 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of provision for warranty - HELD THAT - As submitted that this Tribunal remanded issue back to Ld.AO to re-compute income received by assessee on account of commission and services including warranty obligation by applying rationale initiated by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT 2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT . He submitted that subsequently, in remand proceedings Ld. AO adopted reasonable approach to take provision of expenditure in carrying on warranty at the rate of 7% instead of 6.4% as contended by department as against 8% by assessee. We thus are inclined to set aside this issue back to file of AO in order to decide the issue afresh regarding claim of warranty expenses as per law. Needless to say that proper opportunity is to be granted to assessee as per law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of provision for warranty.
2. Application of rationale from a previous Tribunal order.
3. Remand to the Assessing Officer for re-computing provision for warranty.

Analysis:
1. Disallowance of provision for warranty:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the disallowances made for the provision for warranty. The appellant contended that the details and basis for the warranty were submitted before the Commissioner, including the agreement, bills, and working basis. However, the Commissioner erred in disallowing the provision solely because the amount was deducted from the commission received and not separately debited to the profit and loss account. The Tribunal set aside this issue back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh regarding the claim of warranty expenses in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need to grant the appellant proper opportunity as per legal requirements.

2. Application of rationale from a previous Tribunal order:
The appellant's representative highlighted that the issue of provision for warranty had been addressed in a previous Tribunal order for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. In those cases, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income received by the assessee considering the warranty obligation. The representative referred to the approach taken by the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings, where a reasonable provision rate of 7% was adopted instead of the 6.4% proposed by the department or the 8% claimed by the assessee. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal agreed to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-computing the provision for warranty, ensuring compliance with the legal principles established in previous cases.

3. Remand to the Assessing Officer for re-computing provision for warranty:
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, decided to set aside the issue of the provision for warranty back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The purpose of this remand was to allow the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate and decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting the assessee proper opportunity during this process. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal was allowed on those grounds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on addressing the disallowance of the provision for warranty, applying the rationale from a previous Tribunal order, and remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-computation. The decision aimed to ensure a fair and lawful assessment of the warranty expenses while upholding the principles of natural justice and legal procedure.