DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -13(2)(2), MUMBAI V. SUNPHARMA DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2852/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Sun Pharma Distributors Ltd. and the DCIT concerning the disallowance of a provision for sales return amounting to Rs. 10.67 Crore for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The primary contention was whether the assessee provided a sufficient basis for the provision claimed. The assessee argued that detailed calculations and relevant documents were submitted, which were not considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, and decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a detailed factual verification and fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633508 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Jeypore Timber & Veneer Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [(1982) 137 ITR 415 (Gau)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH SAREEN
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY MEHTA; WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2544/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sun Pharma Distributors Ltd., Sun House, Plot no. 201, B/1, Western Express, Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063. Vs. DCIT – 13(2)(2) Aayakar Bhawan, MK Road, Mumbai – 400020. PAN/GIR No. ABBCS7694H (Applicant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2852/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) DCIT – 13(2)(2) Aayakar Bhawan, MK Road, Mumbai – 400020. Vs. Sun Pharma Distributors Ltd., Sun House, Plot no. 201, B/1, Western Express, Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063. PAN/GIR No. ABBCS7694H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by Shri Manish Sareen, CIT DR Date of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 आदेश / ORDER 2 ITA No. 2544/Mum/2024 Sun Pharma Distributors Ltd, Mumbai PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: These are appeals by the assessee and the Revenue for A.Y. 2020-21. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/CIT(A), for the A.Y 2020-21. 3. At the very outset, we noticed that the assessee in his appeal has raised ground in respect of disallowance of provision for sale return of Rs. 10.67 Crore. As per records the said disallowance has been made the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has not provided the ‘basis’ for arriving at the amount of Rs. 10.67 Crores as ‘provision for sales return’ and the assessee is under no obligation to incur such expenditure. 4. In this regard it is submitted by Ld. AR that although the assessee has made detailed submissions in response to the above objections but the revenue authority have not agreed with the submissions of the assessee, therefore now assessee felt it necessary to bring on record, further detailed calculation of the provisions made for the year 3 ITA No. 2544/Mum/2024 Sun Pharma Distributors Ltd, Mumbai under consideration as well as for the subsequent assessment year. Further assessee also wants to bring on record the facts regarding the reversal of the provision made in the subsequent year. Apart the assessee also wants to place on record the order of the AO for the A.Y 2022-23 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act as the same is relevant for adjudication therefore made an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of above documents as additional evidence. 5. On the other hand Ld. DR contested the said appeal and requested for dismissal of the same. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that the facts are not disputed to the extent of disallowance of ‘provision for sales return’ of Rs. 10.67 crore on the ground that assessee has not provided the “basis” for arriving at the said amount as ‘provision for sales return’. Therefore, under these circumstances further details are now being filed by the assessee by way of additional evidence and these details are very necessary for reaching to the legitimate conclusion and for adjudicating the controversy/ issue once for all. 4 ITA No. 2544/Mum/2024 Sun Pharma Distributors Ltd, Mumbai 7. Since these above documents are in furtherance of earlier documents filed by the assessee, hence are relevant for the purpose of just and complete adjudication therefore while relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Jeypore Timber & Veneer Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [(1982) 137 ITR 415 (Gau)], we allow the application filed by the assessee and admit the documents detailed above as additional evidence. 8. Since we have admitted additional evidence and all the documents now admitted as additional evidence needs detailed factual verification. Therefore in our considered view, the present matter needs to be restored back to the file of CIT(A). Therefore the present appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after verification of the documents relied upon by the assessee by way of additional evidence. Needless to mention after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 9. Before parting we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the 5 ITA No. 2544/Mum/2024 Sun Pharma Distributors Ltd, Mumbai merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 10. In view of our decision in ITA No. 2544/Mum/2024 above, the matter has been restored and therefore appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 2852/Mum/2024 for A.Y. 2020-21 is also sent back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue stand allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 11/06/2025 KRK, PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 6 ITA No. 2544/Mum/2024 Sun Pharma Distributors Ltd, Mumbai 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai "