Wipro GE Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

MA 161/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Private Limited seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The Tribunal had initially referenced paragraphs from a previous decision that were not relevant to the royalty payment issue under dispute. The Tribunal acknowledged the error and deleted the irrelevant paragraphs. Additionally, the Tribunal remitted the issue of disallowance of written-off receivables and advances back to the AO/TPO, directing them to reconsider the matter after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129924 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

MA No.161/Bang/2023 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.161/Bang/2023 (Arising out of 285/Bang/2021) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 4, Kadugodi Industrial Area Whitefield Bangalore 560 067 PAN NO : AAACW1685J Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax Circle-7(1)(1) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Nishi Padma, D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By this MA the assessee seeks rectification of the order of the Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.285/Bang/2021 dated 3.2.2023. 2. The ld. A.R. submitted that while adjudicating the ground No.12, the Tribunal has given a finding after taking the support of the earlier decision in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 in ITA Nos.700 & 701/Bang/2021 dated 5.8.2021 and produced entire portion regarding royalty issue, which is commencing from page 16 to 17 of the Tribunal order. According to the ld. A.R., para Nos.4 to 4.5 of that order in assessee’s own case in earlier year cited (supra) is not relevant and same to be deleted. MA No.161/Bang/2023 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 3. The ld. D.R. submitted that there is no error in reproducing the entire order of the Tribunal cited (supra). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, while adjudicating the ground No.12 on the issue relating to “Royalty” taken support of earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 in ITA Nos.700 & 701/Bang/2021 dated 5.8.2021 and extracted para Nos.4 to 4.5 of that order in pages 16 & 17 of Tribunal order cited (supra). According to the ld. A.R., para Nos.4 to 4.5 are not relating to royalty payment but it relates to incurring of allowability of expenditure u/s 37 of the Act and the same to be deleted. 4.1 In our opinion, there is merit in the argument of ld. A.R. Accordingly, there was an error crept in page nos.16 & 17 of the impugned Tribunal order in reproducing the para nos.4 to 4.5 of earlier order of the Tribunal cited (supra). Accordingly, this portion reproduced in pages 16 & 17 of impugned Tribunal order is deleted. 5. In the next ground the assessee has raised ground no.17 in this appeal No.285/Bang/2021 as follows: “The learned AO/DRP erred in disallowing the written off receivables and advances of Rs.1,63,36,390/- without objectively considering the explanation offered by the assessee.” 5.1 With regard to the above ground, the Tribunal given finding as follows: “19. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The main contention of ld. A.R. is that the AO has not followed the ld. DRP’s order and requested to give a direction to AO/TPO to pass consequential order in conformity with the ld. DRP’s order. We accede to the request of the assessee’s counsel and accordingly, the issue is remitted to the MA No.161/Bang/2023 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 4 AO/TPO to pass consequential order in conformity with the order of the ld. DRP.” 5.2 According to the ld. A.R., an error crept in these findings and during the course of hearing, the ld. A.R. submitted as follows: “During the course of assessment proceedings the AO vide his SCN dt.24.12.2019 sought as to why the difference between provision for bad debts of Rs.17,34,08,090/- and that disallowed by the assessee in the computation of Rs.15,70,63,610/- should not be disallowed u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the compliance of which was sought by 26.12.2019. Since the time given to comply with the notice was very short, the assessee sought time vide its reply dt.26.12.2019. However, the AO disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,63,36,390/- for the reason that no submission was made by the assessee. The assessee is aggrieved by the disallowance as the same was done without providing adequate, reasonable and sufficient opportunity as required under law and the Act. Before the DRP the assessee explained the difference but without giving due thought on the submission given by the assessee, the DRP upheld the disallowance for want of documentary evidence.” 5.3 According to the ld. A.R., this issue may be decided in favour of the assessee or remitted to the AO for fresh consideration. 6. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, there was an error crept in the order of the Tribunal on this issue, while recording the findings on this issue. In our opinion, it is appropriate to remit this issue to the file of AO/TPO for fresh consideration to decide afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration. MA No.161/Bang/2023 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 8. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7 th July, 2023 Sd/- (Beena Pillai) Judicial Member Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 7 th July, 2023. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.