2020 (10) TMI 1082 - AT - Income Tax

Provisions for future expenses disallowed - AO was of the opinion that such type of contingent liabilities were not deductible - HELD THAT - Nature of provisions considered by this Tribunal in preceding years are not similar to future claim provided for by assessee during the year under consideration - assessee submitted details of work, which was to be incurred by assessee in preceding year against which, provision was made. Also that before this Tribunal assessee demonstrated that, the provisions were subsequently debited at the end of the year as the expenditure had been incurred by assessee in respect of the same. In the interest of Justice, we remand the issue to Ld.AO to verify the submissions of assessee in light of the contract entered into with BMRCL. Assessee is directed to furnish all requisite details in support of its claim. Ld.AO is then directed to consider the claim of assessee in accordance with law. Grounds raised by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of provision for future expenses claimed by the assessee.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against an order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. The case involved the disallowance of a provision for future expenses claimed by the assessee amounting to ?7,85,14,570. The Ld.AO disallowed this deduction on the grounds that the provision was uncertain and loaded with the uncertainty of an event causing a liability, citing legal precedents to support the decision. The Ld.CIT(A) referred to a previous Tribunal order and held that the provision could be allowed as a deduction if certain conditions were met, which the assessee had satisfied in previous assessment years. The revenue appealed against the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision.

The Ld.CIT(DR) argued that the nature of payments considered in previous years was different from the provision made in the current year. He contended that the assessee had not adequately demonstrated the nature of the payments for which the provision was made and requested a remand for verification. Conversely, the Ld.AR argued that the provision was made for expenses required to be met at the end of the project, which were built into the overall cost of the contract with BMRCL. The provision was based on scientific and rational estimates and satisfied the conditions set by legal precedents.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was noted that the Ld.AO did not verify the agreement with BMRCL and the conditions stipulated therein. The Tribunal observed that the nature of provisions considered in previous years differed from the future claim provided by the assessee in the current year. The assessee had provided details of work against which the provision was made and demonstrated that the provisions were debited at the end of the year as the expenses had been incurred. In the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the Ld.AO for further verification in light of the contract with BMRCL. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details, and the Ld.AO was instructed to reconsider the claim in accordance with the law.

Ultimately, the grounds raised by the revenue were allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal filed by the revenue was allowed accordingly.