Weatherford Drilling & Production Services (India) Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-4, Baroda

MA 88/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6534 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. NO: 88/AHD/2017 (IN ITA NO. 828/AHD/2014) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) WEATHERFORD DRILLING & PRODUCTION SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. BLOCK NO. 74, MUKUTNAGAR, SOKHADA ROAD MANJUSAR, SAVLI, VADODARA-391775 V/S DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACW4068M APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVI SAWANA, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 20 -04-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 -05-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E WHERE IN IT IS STATED THAT THE CAPTIONED APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE APPLICANT AND HEARING IN RESPECT OF THE M.A NO. 88/A HD/2017 . A.Y. 2009-10 2 SAME WAS FIXED ON MAY 08, 2015. THE MATTER WAS HEAR D ON THE SCHEDULED DATE AND THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS PRONOUNCED THE ORDER O N JUNE 30, 2015. COPY OF THE ORDER IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH OF 'ANNEXURE 1'. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 3 (DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC TION 40(A)(I)/(IA) OF THE ACT) AMOUNTING TO RS. 45,99,634. THE HON'BLE TRIBUN AL PRONOUNCED AS BELOW FOR THE SAID GROUND '6.3. SINCE THE DRP HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF T HE DRP, THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS REJECTED . ' 2. FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 , THE APPLICANT HAD SUO MOTO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 45,99,634 UNDER SECTIONS 40 (A)(I) AND 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, BEING A PROVISION FOR MANAGEMENT FEES (RS. 40,04,126) AND LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES (RS. 5,95,508), AS NO TAXES WERE DEDUCTED THEREON. THESE AMOUNTS WERE ALSO REPORTED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE APPLICANT HAD D EDUCTED AND DEPOSITED TAXES ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUMS ALONG WITH OTHER PAYMENTS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 (PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ). IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE APPLICANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE SAID EXPENSE S UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I)/(IA) OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AT THE TIME OF FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME. M.A NO. 88/A HD/2017 . A.Y. 2009-10 3 WITH REGARD TO THE SAID CLAIM, THE APPLICANT HAD SU BMITTED ALL CORROBORATING EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF COPIES OF INVOICES, AND CO PIES OF ALL RELEVANT CHALLANS EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF TAXES MADE IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE REFERRED AMOUNTS BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, DRP AND AO. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(I)/(IA) OF T HE ACT, AN ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES, WHICH WERE DISALLOW ED IN EARLIER YEARS IF IT HAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEDUCTED TAXES THEREON, IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAXES ARE DEPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPLICANT HAD DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED TAXES ON SUCH EXPENSES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ACCORDINGLY, T HE APPLICANT HAS MADE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF THE SAID EXPENSES IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED AN ORDER REJECTING THE APPLICANT'S GROUND ON THE REASON THAT THE DRP HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED TO VER IFY THE APPLICANT'S CLAIM. IN THIS REGARDS, THE APPLICANT MOST HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT IT HAD NEVER CHALLENGED THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP. IT WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTIO N OF THE AO WHO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PROPER EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP AND ACCORDINGLY, IT HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THIS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT REQUESTING THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL T O RECALL THE ORDER AND DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE APPLICANT'S CLAIM. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH REL EVANT RECORD. AS WE CAN SEE THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE ITAT AND M.A NO. 88/A HD/2017 . A.Y. 2009-10 4 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. A.R. SEEMS TO BE REQU ESTING FOR REVIEW OF OUR OWN ORDER. SINCE THERE IS NO APPARENT RECORD, THERE FORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINE TO ENTERTAIN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THEREFORE , M.A. FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07 - 05- 2018 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 07/05/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD