Sulzer Pumps India Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
As mentioned earlier, for the year under consideration, the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.51,28,703/- as Cess in the return filed by it. It did not claim the amount paid, as deduction in the return filed by it for AY 2012-13. However, in the light of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Limited (supra), the assessee has filed an additional ground claiming that it is eligible for deduction of the amount paid as Cess for the year under consideration.
In Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra), the Bombay High Court has held that “ an additional ground relating to claim of deduction u/s.80IA could not be permitted to be raised, if necessary evidence that assessee was entitled to claim was not on record and the assessee had no reason to satisfy appellate authority that ground now raised was bonafide and same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons.”
The above additional ground is a purely legal one and following the decision in NTPC v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit it for adjudication.
Since, the above issue has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the AO for passing an order in the light of the ratio laid down in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra). Thus the additional ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter the ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’). As common issues are involved, we are proceeding to dispose off these appeals by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We begin with the AY 2012-13.
2. The assessee filed the grounds of appeal along with Form No 36B on 13.02.2017. Later on, it filed a revised grounds of appeal on 27.02.2020. In the revised one, the 8th & 9th grounds of appeal are not pressed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee because of smallness of amounts. Considering it, as there is no difference between the original grounds of appeal and the revised one, we consider below the original one for adjudication.
3. The assessee, M/s. Sulzer Pumps India Private Limited, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of single and multistage power-driven pumps for industrial use. The assessee is a part of the Sulzer group which is headquartered at Winterthur, Switzerland. It filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 30.11.2012 declaring total income at Rs.54,27,19,898/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) referred the international transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of assessee’s income on an arm’s length basis. The TPO vide order dated 21.01.2016 passed u/s.92CA held the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of certain international transactions as “Nil” on the ground that the receipt of the services was not established. The AO, thereafter made certain additions to the income returned by the assessee. The assessee preferred a reference to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP approved the order passed by the TPO/AO. The AO, thereafter completed the assessment vide order dated 23.01.2017 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. In the order, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.65,61,89,583/-after making the following adjustments:-
