HONDA MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD. ,GURGAON V. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

MA 314/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting a decision by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the disallowance of deduction for technical knowhow expenses paid to its parent company for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Initially, the AO and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) rejected the claim, leading the Tribunal to remand the issue back to the AO for a detailed factual examination, as the claim was not part of the original or revised return of income. The assessee's Miscellaneous Application argued that the Tribunal should have allowed the claim based on precedents from earlier years, which the Tribunal dismissed, emphasizing the need for a factual basis for such claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470384 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANISHTHA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARPREET SINGH AJMANI; ASHMITA SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"M.A.No.314/Del/2024 [In ITA No.1524/Del/2022] Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I-FRIDAY” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.314/Del/2024 [In ITA No.1524/Del/2022] [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.1, Sector-3 IMT Manesar, Gurgaon Haryana-122050 PAN-AAACH7467D vs ACIT Circle-1(1) Gurugram APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. & Ms. Ashmita Sharma, Adv. Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanishtha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 07.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The assessee has filed Misc. Application dated 12.08.2024 under s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) against the appellate order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1524/Del/2022 order dated 05.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 passed under s. 254(1) of the Act. 2. As per the M.A. running into 12 pages, the assessee has attempted to point out alleged error in the order of the Tribunal to be in the nature of mistake apparent from the record contemplated under s. 254(2) of the Act. It is the case of the assessee that as per para 42 of the order of the Tribunal, the assessee had challenged the disallowance of deduction of technical knowhow expenses paid to parent company. While determining the issue, the ITAT observed that AO disallowed the claim of technical knowhow expenses as it was M.A.No.314/Del/2024 [In ITA No.1524/Del/2022] Page | 2 neither raised in the original return of income now through revised return of income. The DRP also rejected the claim of the assessee summarily. In this backdrop, the Tribunal examined the issue and restore the issue to the AO for denovo examination for the purposes of factual examination. 3. The relevant para of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:- 43. “Before us, it is the specific case of the assessee that similar claim made in earlier assessment years in course of proceedings before the departmental authorities have been allowed by the Tribunal. Since the issue has not been factually examined by the departmental authorities, as they rejected assessee’s claim summarily, we are inclined to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after giving due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” 4. As per Misc. Application, the assessee contends that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim of the assessee rather than remitting the matter back to the AO. Such plea is premised on the ground that in similar set of facts, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee in the preceding Assessment Years. 5. We do not see force in the plea of the assessee towards any rectification of the observations of the Tribunal. It is admitted fact that the technical knowhow expenses sought to be claimed as revenue expenses did not form part of the return of income filed by assessee. 6. The claim of such expenses is dependent on corroboration of factual matrix. The factual aspects have not been examined by the Revenue authorities at all. In the light of the circumstances emerging and in the light of the order of the Tribunal qua earlier Assessment Years referred in the context, the Tribunal has given conscious direction to the AO to satisfy itself on factual aspects of the character and allowability of the claim as such aspects have not been examined by any of the authorities for subject Assessment Year. M.A.No.314/Del/2024 [In ITA No.1524/Del/2022] Page | 3 The Tribunal could not have adjudicated the issue either way in the absence of any finding on facts, available on record insofar as AY 2018-19 in question is concerned. 7. We thus see no error in the order of the Tribunal which can be categorized as ‘mistake apparent from record’. 8. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "