By Jagdish T. Punjabi | Prachi Parekh
Chartered Accountants | Devendra Jain
Advocate
5. [2020] 77 ITR
(Trib.) 165 (Del.)(Trib.) DCIT vs. Mahavir
Multitrade (P) Ltd. ITA No.:
1139/Del/2017 A.Y.: 2012-13 Date of order: 27th
November, 2019
Explanation 1 to
section 37(1): Deduction made by the buyers from the price, on account of
damage / variance in the product quality does not attract Explanation 1 to
section 37 (1) and same is an allowable deduction even when the assessee
classified it as ‘penalty on account of non-fulfilment of contractual
requirements’
FACTS
The assessee was
engaged in trading of imported coal. It sold coal as per the specifications and
requirements of the buyer and in the event of failure to comply with the
requirements, the buyer used to make deduction while releasing the payment on
account of variation in quantity and quality; the amount of deduction for A.Y.
2012-13 was Rs. 3,66,68,504 which was claimed as a deduction while computing
the business income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee
categorised such deduction as penalty levied for not complying with the terms
of the contract. But the A.O. made an addition on the ground that such penalty
cannot be regarded as a deductible expenditure as per the Explanation to
section 37(1). It was explained to the A.O. that the nature of the product was
such that there was high possibility of degradation or variance and the
deduction made by the buyers represented compensatory levy for not meeting the
specifications / agreed parameters of coal.
On an appeal before
the CIT(A), considering various judicial precedents it was held that
exigibility of an item to tax or tax deduction cannot be based merely on the
label (nomenclature) given to it by the assessee. It was held that deduction by
buyers represented the expenditure for the damages caused, which is
compensatory payment made by the assessee and it entitled him to claim the
deduction from the income. It could not be equated with infraction of law as
provided in the Explanation to section 37(1). Accordingly, the additions made
by the A.O. were directed to be deleted.
Thereafter, the
Department filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A).
HELD
1. It was accepted by the A.O. that the assessee
received less payment from the buyers because of the variance in the quality of
coal. The allegation of the A.O. only revealed that there was failure on the
part of the assessee to meet the contractual obligation but it was nowhere
specified as to which provision of law was violated so as to invite the penal
consequences.
2. The A.O. had failed to consider the explanation
given by the assessee wherein it was clearly stated that the contract with the
buyers stipulated the consequence of price reduction / adjustment when there
was variation in the quality or quantity of the coal.
3. The inability to meet the contractual
obligation by the assessee could not be termed as an offence or infraction of
law so as to deny the claim of the assessee by invoking Explanation 1 to
section 37(1) and exigibility of an item to tax or tax deduction cannot be made
merely on the label given to it by the parties. The penalty was levied on the
assessee for not complying with the terms of the contract, which is a civil
consequence for not complying with certain terms of the contract, and has
nothing to do with any offence.
4. The CIT(A) had rightly relied upon the
decisions in Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 684
(SC), Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 33 (All.),
Continental Constructions Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 81 (SC) and also
the decisions of the Kerala and the Andhra Pradesh High Courts in CIT vs.
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 177 (Ker.) and CIT vs.
Bharat Television (P) Ltd. [1996] 218 ITR 173 (AP).
Accordingly, the
order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
