PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI V. PR CIT, CENTRAL DELHI-3, DELHI

MA 54/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., which filed miscellaneous applications against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The applications sought rectification of what the assessee claimed were mistakes apparent from the record in the ITAT's earlier decision. The main issues revolved around the non-consideration of certain findings and submissions related to the payments made to sales promoters, which the assessee argued were reimbursements and not commissions, thus not subject to tax deduction at source under section 194H of the Act. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee's submissions did not point out any mistake apparent on record but rather sought a review of the ITAT's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708376 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Seagram Distilleries's case, United Breweries case
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK CHOPRA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Assessment record; Revision of order
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.52/Del/2025 (in ITA No.1971/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) MA No.53/Del/2025 (in ITA No.1972/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) MA No.54/Del/2025 (in ITA No.1973/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., vs. Pr.CIT, Central Delhi, Atelier No.10, Level 1, New Delhi. Worldmark 2, Aerocity Delhi, Delhi – 110 037. (PAN :AAACS4781P) APPLICANT/ASSESSEE BY : Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate Shri Anmol Anand, Advocate Ms. Priya Tondon, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2025 Date of Order : 18.07.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. These misc. applications are filed by the Applicant/Assessee against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1971, 1972 & 1973/Del/2024 dated 12.02.2025 for AYs 2 MA Nos.52 to 54/Del/2025 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 for rectifying of mistake apparent from record u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Since the issues are common and the misc. applications are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. First we take up MA No.52/Del/2025 for AY 2012-13 as the lead case. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Bench while passing the common order dated 12.02.2025 has not recorded/considered the following :- (i) Did not record the findings contained in order dated 15.05.2020 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the original round of proceedings in Applicant’s case for AY 2012-13 to 2014-15, which was the genesis of the present proceedings; (ii) Did not record the findings of CIT (A) passed in Seagram Distilleries’s case, which were neither challenged by the Revenue nor the Applicant and had hence, had attained finality; (iii) Despite demonstrating that Sales Promoters were paid commission separately for their services on which tax was duly deduced at source by the Applicant, this Hon’ble Bench recorded at para 23(a) at internal page 29 of common order dated 12.02.2025 that “It is not demonstrated how the sales promoters are compensated for their 3 MA Nos.52 to 54/Del/2025 services.”; (vi) Did not consider the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in United Breweries (supra). 4. He submitted that non-consideration of above stated submissions has resulted in errors apparent from record for which provisions of section 254 (2) of the Act are applicable by way of recalling common order dated 12.02.2025. Further he submitted as under :- “(i) Because the AO had changed the goal post and required the Applicant to carry out one to one mapping, the same was carried out by the Applicant on a sample basis. In fact, by way of chart submitted on 04.12.2024, it was demonstrated that: (a) After the retailers purchased Applicant's products from APBCL, Ark Marketing, i.e., the Sales Promoter in Andhra Pradesh, would calculate and determine the discount/ trade scheme payable to such retailers based on the volume purchased by each of such retailers. (b) Thereafter, Ark Marketing would raise a debit note seeking payment of the cumulative discount/ trade scheme payable to each of such retailers. (c) Based on such debit note, the Applicant would make the payment of discount/ trade scheme to Ark Marketing. (d) After receipt of such payment, Ark Marketing would disburse the said amount to each of the retailers, who were eligible for 4 MA Nos.52 to 54/Del/2025 discount/ trade scheme and provide a list of such retailers along with disbursement proof (such as bank account statements) to the Applicant. (ii) The chart submitted by the Applicant also enclosed examples of one on one mapping of payment of discount! trade scheme from the Applicant to Ark Marketing to retailers along with bank statements of the Applicant as well as Ark Marketing to show a complete reimbursement trail. (iii) That apart, the Applicant also filed a short synopsis, containing one on one mapping example from each month.” 5. Further he submitted that the Bench has despite recording in the common order that the assessee had submitted that said chart and had submitted the said synopsis did not consider that even one to one mapping was carried out by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, which clearly demonstrated that the payments allowed by the Assessing Officer were in the nature of reimbursement of expenses. He submitted that the assessee has demonstrated one to one mapping before the Bench by filing a chart. It was brought to our attention of the Bench that inspite of one to one mapping having been done, the Assessing Officer has reverted back to the position as taken in the original assessment framed and has held that since the payments were routed through an agent, it partake the character of commission and section 194H of the Act was applicable. 5 MA Nos.52 to 54/Del/2025 He brought to our notice copy of assessment order dated 30.03.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer in the consequential proceedings to order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, he prayed that by not considering the above submissions, the order passed by the ITAT is having manifest error and prayed that the order may be recalled. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the detailed submissions of the assessee and submitted that the abovesaid detailed submissions clearly indicate that the assessee is praying for review of the order and has not brought on record any mistake apparent on record. He also brought to our notice clear finding of the Bench. In para 23 of the order, he submitted that the Bench has considered the detailed facts on record and gave a reasoned findingS. He prayed that misc. applications filed by the assessee may be dismissed. 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that the main appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed u/s 263 in which ld. PCIT has considered the assessment records and found that the assessee has filed its reply vide letters dated 25.03.2022, 26.03.2022 and 29.03.2022. The assessee has submitted break up of trade discount paid through sales promoters in the major cities. Ld. PCIT observed that vide letter dated 29.03.2022, the assessee has submitted Pen Drive containing 413 files and size of 2.42 GB with the prayer that the data is voluminous and it would not be feasible to upload the 6 MA Nos.52 to 54/Del/2025 same on the income-tax portal or sent to official email ID due to limitation of the size of the document. After perusing the above data submitted by the assessee, he observed that the assessee has filed most of the data in Pen Drive containing data of 413 files vide letter dated 29.03.2022 and Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order on 31.03.2022 almost within next date of receiving major reply from the assessee. Since the AO has completed the assessment in such hurried manner is the main issue and further he observed that the Assessing Officer himself stated in his order the minimum documentary evidence required was sales promoters agreement, debit note raised by the promoters specifying the trade scheme discount, details of retailers and bank account of the assessee showing the transfer of trade scheme discount to retailer’s bank account but failed to verify the whole data. The Assessing Officer has only verified the transactions with Ark Marketing Services and granted relief to the assessee considering the payment made to these entities as reimbursement of expenses to the tune of Rs.22.09 crores. He observed that the Assessing Officer did not call for mapping of one to one transactions and supporting evidences establishing the relationship between sales promoters and retailers which could establish the fact that payments were purely reimbursement which were ultimately paid to the retailers/distributors. 8. We analysed the relevance of involving of provisions of section 263 in the given 7 MA Nos.52 to 54/Del/2025 facts available on record and we gave a clear finding that the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment in hurried manner and not verified various payments made through the sales promoters and assessee has failed to map the payments one to one basis. We gave a direction to the assessee to file a reconciliation month-wise in order to map the payment one to one basis as per our direction in Para No.23. 9. Now before us, assessee has made submissions that the Bench has not recorded the findings contained in the earlier proceedings before the ITAT and not recorded the findings of ld. CIT (A) passed in Seagrams Distilleries case. It has demonstrated the sales promoters were paid commission separately for their services on which tax was duly deducted at source by the assessee and also did not consider the decision of ITAT in United Beverages case. All the issues raised by the assessee before us are issues related to merits of the case and we have considered all aspects relevant for reaching out decision that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in such hurried manner and not followed the directions of the ITAT in the earlier proceedings vide order dated 15.05.2020 to verify the payments made to the sales promoters. The Assessing Officer chose to verify a part of the transactions i.e. relating to Ark Marketing and allowed the same in such hurried manner, it is relevant to note, assessee has filed the relevant information only on 29.03.2022 and Assessing Officer has completed the 8 MA Nos.52 to 54/Del/2025 assessment on 31.03.2022. After considering the overall facts on record, we felt that the whole information submitted by the assessee which has huge volume of information which needs proper verification and also we gave a clear direction to the Assessing Officer at para 23 of the order. In our view, the detailed submissions made by the assessee are nothing but prayer of review of impugned order which does not fall under the category of mistake apparent on record. Therefore, the review of our order is outside the purview of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we are inclined to dismiss the misc. application for AY 2012- 13 filed by the assessee. 10. The facts in other two misc. applications in the AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are exactly similar to the facts in the misc. application preferred by the assessee in AY 2012-13, the findings in AY 2012-13 are applicable mutatis mutandis to these two misc. applications in AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15. In the result, both the misc. applications for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed. 11. In the result, all the misc. applications filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 18TH day of July, 2025. SD/- SD/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18.07.2025 TS 9 MA Nos.52 to 54/Del/2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "