2023 (4) TMI 1053 - HC - Income Tax

Provision for warranty in excess of 2.14 percent of sales - whether Tribunal is right in allowing the provision for warranty even thought the assessee had not made the provision on a scientific basis as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rotark Controls India Pvt. Ltd 2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT ? - HELD THAT - In assessee s own case 2009 (1) TMI 926 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT this court has answered the question of law in assessee s favour. In the said appeal, Revenue had challenged the Tribunal s order for A.Y. 2003-04 which had held that the warranty estimated at 2.14% was arrived based on assessee s past experience in the Indian International market and the post sales support rendered based on the technical evaluation. In Rotork Case 2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT it is held that a provision is a liability, which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation and it is recognized when an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of past event - it is probable and an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation. Also carefully perused the tabular column furnished by Shri. Pardiwala extracted above showing the provisions made between A.Y. 2007-08 and 2017-18. He is right in his submission that the total utilization for the corresponding A.Y.s 2008-09 to 2017-18 is 95.5% of the total provision. Therefore, as held in Rotork Case, the estimate made by assessee is reliable and robust. The orders passed by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) and the Tribunal are unsustainable in law and these appeals by the assessee merit consideration.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the disallowance of provision for warranty and the method followed to create the provision.

Issue 1: Disallowance of provision for warranty
The Appellant challenged the disallowance of warranty provisions, arguing that the Tribunal erred in not allowing the provision for warranty in excess of 2.14 percent of sales without considering past orders in the Appellant's own case. The Appellant contended that a scientific formula had been consistently followed for creating the provision for warranty, and the Tribunal's observation of a huge difference in the provision made and actual utilization was not justified. The Appellant highlighted that if only 2.14% of sales is allowed as provision for warranty, it would lead to a permanent disallowance.

Issue 2: Compliance with legal guidelines
The Revenue argued that the Appellant did not follow the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the Rotork Case for determining provisions for warranty. The Revenue contended that the provision for warranty was not calculated using a scientific method and that the Appellant's policy lacked robustness in evaluating outstanding provisions and reversal of excess provisions. The Revenue pointed out that the actual utilization was less than the provision made, indicating a discrepancy.

Judgment Details:
The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the facts of the case. It noted that in a previous case, the Court had ruled in favor of the Appellant regarding the provision for warranty. The Court referred to the Rotork Case, emphasizing that a provision is a liability that can be measured through estimation based on certain criteria. The Court also acknowledged that the Assessment Order in the present case was based on directions that had been set aside in a previous Tribunal order.

The Court examined a statement provided by the Appellant showing provisions made for several assessment years and the corresponding utilization percentages. It was observed that the Appellant had utilized about 95.5% of the total provision made between specific assessment years, indicating a reliable estimate. The Court concluded that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the authorities were unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals by the Appellant and set aside the Tribunal's orders.

In the connected appeal by the Revenue, the Court noted that the Appellant had utilized 95.5% of the total provision for specific assessment years, demonstrating a robust estimate. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order in this regard and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In the final order, the Court allowed the appeals by the Appellant, set aside the Tribunal's orders, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The questions of law were answered in favor of the Appellant and against the Revenue.