2012 (10) TMI 534 - AT - Income Tax

Provision for various expense transfer to Sister concern - Assessee company had debited an amount towards cost of project in progress including provision for various expenses Certain sums is stated to have been spent by the Assessee s sister concern Held that - No detailed examination of the expenditure incurred by Assessee s sister concern submitted in support of the claim amount. We are also of the view that so far as the amount spent by the Assessee itself is concerned, from 01.4.2004 to 31.12.2005, it has successfully discharged its onus in filing corroborative evidence hereinabove. In order to ensure appropriate compliance with the directions of the co-ordinate Bench remit the case back to the assessing authority. Issue remand back to AO

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition towards provision made by the assessee for maintenance work.
2. Allowability of provision for maintenance expenses under sec.37(i) of the Act.

Issue 1: Addition towards provision made by the assessee for maintenance work

The appeal by the Revenue was against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-III, Chennai, related to the addition towards provision made by the assessee for maintenance work amounting to Rs.3.5 crores. The Assessing Officer had rejected the claim of the Assessee, stating that the provision made was not based on any scientific method. The Assessing Officer concluded that the provision for maintenance expenses was not allowable expenditure under sec.36 and of the Act, resulting in an addition of Rs.3.5 crores to the Assessee's income. The CIT(Appeals), however, accepted the Assessee's plea, citing various case laws and treating the provision for maintenance expenses as allowable under sec.37(i) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved by this decision.

Issue 2: Allowability of provision for maintenance expenses under sec.37(i) of the Act

The Assessee contended that the provision for maintenance expenses was allowable under sec.37(i) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this argument, relying on case laws and legal precedents. The Assessee had transferred a substantial amount towards maintenance deposit, and the Assessing Officer had raised concerns about the lack of scientific basis for estimating the maintenance expenses. The ITAT, Chennai, in the second round of litigation, found that while the Assessee had successfully provided evidence for the amount spent by itself, there was a lack of detailed examination of the expenditure incurred by the Assessee's sister concern. As a result, the case was remitted back to the assessing authority for re-examination, with an opportunity for the Assessee to provide further evidence if needed.

In conclusion, the ITAT Chennai partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a more thorough examination of the expenditure incurred by the Assessee's sister concern and ensuring compliance with the directions given in previous orders.