Case Law Details
Bando India Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Addition Deleted Due to Incorrect Accrual Taxation of Duty Drawback Income; ITAT Rejects Accrual Basis Taxation Due to Clear Statutory Provision Under Section 145B(3); Mismatch with CBEC Data Not Sufficient for Accrual Taxation of Duty Drawback Income.
In Bando India Private Limited Vs ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, considered the taxability of duty drawback income for Assessment Year 2018–19. The assessee had filed its return declaring NIL income and offered duty drawback income on a receipt basis, consistent with its past accounting practice. During limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer noted a mismatch between income declared and data from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, observing that a larger amount had been sanctioned. Since the assessee followed the mercantile system, the Assessing Officer taxed the balance amount of ₹9,25,662 on an accrual basis under Section 143(3), which was upheld by the CIT(A).
Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that Section 145B(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 mandates taxation of duty drawback in the year of receipt and that this method had been consistently followed and accepted in earlier years. The Revenue contended that sanction of the amount created reasonable certainty of receipt, justifying taxation on accrual basis.
The Tribunal examined Section 145B(3), which provides that such income is deemed taxable in the year of receipt if not taxed earlier. It held that the statutory provision clearly supports taxation on receipt basis and that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taxing the amount on accrual basis. Accordingly, the addition of ₹9,25,662 was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.08.2025, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC], Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2018-19 in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10086237.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,25,662/- towards Duty Drawback, as erroneously made by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) order dated 03.09.2021.
ii. That as per the specific provisions of Section 145B (3) r.w.s. 2(24)(xviii), Duty Drawback is taxable on Accrual basis.
iii. That Ld. CIT(A) and AO have both erred in taxing Duty Drawback of Rs. 9,25,662/- on accrual basis, when the appellant has been consistently declaring this income on actual receipt basis.
iv. That as per note no. 2 annexed with the audited financial statements, the appellant had declared the basis of preparation of financial statements as: “The accounting policies adopted in preparation of the financial statements are consistent with those of the previous years”.
v. That the addition of Rs. 9,25,662/- erroneously made by changing the consistently followed accounting policy of the appellant, be deleted.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return for A.Y. 2018-19 on 29.11.2018, declaring NIL income and deemed income u/s 151JB at Rs. 15,07,99,048/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act at an income of Rs. 10,88,640/- and deemed income u/s 151JB at Rs. 15,07,99,048/- . Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny on the ground that there was a mismatch in duty drawback offered as income by the assessee and as per the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short, CBEC) data. The assessee contended that income on account of duty drawback claims is being offered on actual receipt basis consistently since last several years. However, Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s contention and observed that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, and, therefore, the duty drawback amount of Rs. 9,25,662/- not offered as income was added to the total income and assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
3.1 Ld. CIT(A) also concurred with the observations of Ld. AO and held that since the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting, provisions of section 145B(2) of the Act are applicable whereas the assessee contended that section 145B(3) is applicable in its case. Vide order dated 21.08.2025, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal after rejecting assessee’s contentions. Further aggrieved, the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee’s case is clearly covered by the provisions of section 145B(3) according to which the income from duty drawback etc is deemed to be the income of the previous year in which it is received. Ld. AR has further pointed that this system of accounting in respect of duty drawback is being consistently followed by the assessee and the same has been accepted by the revenue in earlier years even under scrutiny.
4.1 On the other hand, Ld. DR has argued that the issue was taken up based on specific inputs from the CBEC data as per which duty drawback of Rs. 9,80,193/-was sanctioned during the relevant financial year whereas the assessee had offered only Rs. 54,531/- as income in the year under consideration. Since the amount was sanctioned by the CBEC, there was a reasonable certainty of its realisation within the year and accordingly, the remaining amount of Rs. 9,25,662/- has rightly been taxed by the Ld. AO during the year under consideration.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the taxability of income received by way of duty drawback etc is specifically covered by the provisions of section 145B and the relevant sub section (3) is reproduced below:
“Sec. 145B
1.
2.
3. The income referred to in sub-clause (xviii) of clause (24) of section 2 shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which it is received, if not charged to income-tax in any earlier previous year.”
6. In view of clear legal position, we are of the considered view that the duty drawback has rightly been shown as income in the year of receipt and Ld. AO was not justified in including the same on accrual basis during the year under consideration. Accordingly, we hereby, direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 9,25,662/- made on account of duty drawback.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26.02.2026 .
Author Bio
