2010 (7) TMI 127 - HC - Income Tax

Payment according to contractual terms deduction of expenses - In view of the settlement, GEB disbursed service charges of Rs. 2,12,01,307/- to appellant. Out of this amount, appellant booked Rs. 1,48,40,915/- as expenses on account of monies payable to Mahan as per Clause 5 of the joint venture agreement. - The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 83,30,111/- out of Rs. 1,48,40,915/- as according to him, by virtue of Clause 6 of the joint venture agreement only surplus, if any, which remained after meeting cost/expenses is to be paid to Mahan, subject to 2.8% of claim amount settled. Held that - ITAT by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for deciding the said case de novo has, in the process, even set aside the expenditure allowed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). We are of the view that ITAT has no power of enhancement of disallowance of expenditure made by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) especially when no appeal had been filed by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
2. Challenge to the ITAT order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Disallowance of expenditure payable to a party under a joint venture agreement.
4. Interpretation of clauses in the joint venture agreement by the ITAT.
5. Legal errors in the ITAT's decision and remand to the Assessing Officer.
6. Power of enhancement of disallowance of expenditure by the ITAT.

Condonation of Delay:
The judgment allowed the application for condonation of delay of 59 days in re-filing the appeal, subject to all just exceptions.

Challenge to ITAT Order:
The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the ITAT's order dated 5th June, 2009, related to the assessment year 2001-2002. The appellant was appointed as a handling agent by GEB for quality claims settlement with SECFL, leading to a joint venture with Mahan. The dispute arose over the disallowance of certain expenses by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).

Disallowance of Expenditure:
The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the expenses claimed by the appellant under the joint venture agreement. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, but upheld the disallowance of a specific amount. The ITAT set aside the previous decisions and directed the Assessing Officer to re-determine the share of revenue payable based on the joint venture agreement's clauses.

Interpretation of Clauses:
The ITAT's decision to remand the matter for de novo consideration was challenged by the appellant, arguing that the reliance on certain clauses of the joint venture agreement was misplaced. The court found that the ITAT had no power to enhance the disallowance of expenditure and remanded the matter back to the ITAT for a decision on the issue.

Legal Errors and Remand:
The court held that the ITAT's remand to the Assessing Officer was improper as it set aside the expenditure allowed by the lower authorities without the power of enhancement. The matter was remanded back to the ITAT for a decision on the issue without expressing any opinion on the specific disallowed expenditure.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, detailing the legal arguments, decisions, and reasoning provided by the court.