9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. - ITA 37/2016 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2017 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. NAJMI WAZIRI JJ. Appellant Through : Sh. Ashok. K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel. Respondent Through: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa and Sh. Sameep Gupta, Advocates. MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) whereby it dismissed its appeal. The ITAT affirmed the order of CIT(A) who had directed that the disallowance of ₹ 70 lakhs paid by the assessee respondent as a condition pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.02.2007 was liable as an expense and that it was covered by Section 43B of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amounts paid were pursuant to this Court s order and were compensatory in nature and were also liable under Section 37 of the 1961 Act. Relying on a large number of precedents, the CIT(A) took note of a Special Bench order of the ITAT in DCIT v. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. 2007 (110) TTJ 183 (Chd) and held that the expense was liable to be allowed under Section 43B. The ITAT before which the Revenue preferred an appeal [aggrieved with the findings of the CIT(A)] confirmed the CIT(A) s order and also relied upon a ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Birla Brother Pvt. Ltd. 1971 (82) ITR 166 (SC) and ruled as follows: 28. In view of above, at the outset, we note that undisputedly the assessee made payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following the decision of Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of DCIT Vs. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (Supra) we hold that section 43B allow deduction of impugned payment as additional custom duty irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was raised against the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any perversity, ambiguity or any other valid reason to interfere with the impugned order and we uphold the same. 5. It is urged by learned counsel for the Revenue rather vehemently that the liability had never arisen and that in the absence of an adjudication order, the amount was not payable by the assessee, and, therefore, was correctly disallowed under Section 43B. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 to SCN, along with interest from Novus International, 301, South Plaza-II, 209, Masjid Moth, NDSE-II, New Delhi (Noticee No.1) through its Proprietor Shri Praveen Saxena under the then existing proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 28AB ibid; vii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 5,21,46,447/- (i.e. ₹ 3,76,71,175/- ₹ 1,44,75,272/- Total ₹ 5,21,46,447/-) on M/s. Novus International through its Proprietor, Shri Praveen Saxena under Section 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962. However, if the aforesaid duty along with interest payable under the then existing Section 26AB is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of this order, the amount of penalty under Section 114A shall be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
