9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 311 - AT - Income TaxDisallowing the deduction u/s. 35(2AB) - weighted deduction of 200 % R&D expenditure- rectification of mistake u/s 154 - technical defect - Held that - The ld. CIT(A) pointed out the technical defect in Appeal with respect to filing of appeal against the order u/s 154 instead of order u/s 143(3). This technical defect was a curable defect, which does not go to alter the core issue involved in this appeal. The assessment Completed u/s 143(3) after disallowing the deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of ₹ 2,59,16,364/- representing to 200% of the expenditure incurred on R & D, as claimed by the assessee. The assessee filed application u/s. 154 before the AO, on which the AO restricted the disallowance to ₹ 1,29,58,182/- representing to 100% of the expenditure incurred on R & D on the premise that the expenses to the tune of ₹ 1,29,58,182/- stood already disallowed by assessee itself for claiming the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB).The appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the order u/s. 154, which was dismissed by the first appellate authority. The contention of the assessee is that this is despite the fact that the assessee applied for and received approval for their R&D facility as an in-house R& D facility from DSIR from the F.Y. 2011-12 and renewed till 31.03.2017. CIT(A) deem it expedient in the interest of justice to remit the case back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merit of the core issue, i.e., disallowance u/s. 35(2AB) after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessee is directed to submit the subject approval of DSIR along with all the material/documentary evidences, which he deems fit to produce before the first appellate authority for examination and decision.appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. .
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of 200% deduction of R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on technical grounds. 3. Eligibility for weighted deduction of R&D expenditure based on delayed approval from DSIR. 4. Procedural defect in filing the appeal under Section 154 instead of Section 143(3). Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of 200% Deduction of R&D Expenditure: The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of the 200% deduction of R&D expenditure claimed by the assessee under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially disallowed this claim due to the absence of approval in Form 3CM from the Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR) at the time of passing the assessment orders under Sections 143(3) and 154. The assessee argued that their R&D facility was recognized by DSIR and that they had incurred ?1,29,58,182 towards R&D, which was allowed as a 100% deduction by the AO. The weighted deduction of 200% was disallowed solely due to the lack of timely approval in Form 3CM. 2. Dismissal of the Appeal by CIT(A) on Technical Grounds: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Gurgaon, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 35(2AB) was decided during the proceedings under Section 143(3) and could not be considered in the present appeal filed under Section 154. The assessee contended that the appeal was dismissed merely on technical grounds without evaluating the facts or the issue on merit. The CIT(A) did not address the core issue of the weighted deduction but focused on the procedural aspect of the appeal being filed under the wrong section. 3. Eligibility for Weighted Deduction Based on Delayed Approval from DSIR: The assessee received the approval in Form 3CM from DSIR during the pendency of the appeal with CIT(A), which laid down a cut-off date from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2017. The assessee argued that their R&D facility had been recognized by DSIR from FY 2011-12 (AY 2012-13) and renewed till 31.03.2017. The delay in approval was due to policy ambiguities at DSIR regarding software R&D facilities. The assessee cited various case laws supporting the claim that once sanction under Section 35(2AB) is granted, the benefit of weighted deduction should be allowed from the year of initial recognition by DSIR. 4. Procedural Defect in Filing the Appeal: The appeal was initially filed under Section 154 instead of Section 143(3), which was identified as a procedural defect by CIT(A). The assessee argued that this was a curable defect and should not defeat the just cause. The CIT(A) had initially pointed out this defect and agreed to provide time to rectify it, but subsequently dismissed the appeal without giving the opportunity to correct the defect. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s act of dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without addressing the core issue was not appreciable under law. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the technical defect in filing the appeal was curable and did not alter the core issue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not address the merits of the case regarding the disallowance under Section 35(2AB) and remitted the case back to CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to submit the DSIR approval and all relevant evidence to the first appellate authority for examination and decision. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Conclusion: The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on the merits of the disallowance under Section 35(2AB), after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit the necessary documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need to address the substantive issue rather than focusing solely on procedural technicalities.
|
