• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


Hyderabad ITAT’s Order for Bank Guarantee Encashment & Its Relation to the Business

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench whilst deleting the addition passing the ruling that the encashment of the bank guarantee has been incurred in the normal course of business.

Here, in this case, the assessee is Ogene Systems India Limited that has debited in books of account an amount of Rs.1,10,61,051/ as a Security deposit for non-performance. It was further found that the assessee had paid a bank guarantee for the execution of the turnkey project with a High Explosive Factory located at Pune. Contrarily, the assessee failed to implement the project. So The encashment of the bank guarantee is in the nature of penalty imposed for the default in executing the project.

Additionally, the assessee did not realize any amount in this project. As the expenditure that has been claimed by the assessee is in the nature of a penalty and as there was the absence of income out of this project; consequently, the expenditure of Rs.1,10,61,051/ that has been claimed by the appellant was not allowed and finally added to the income.

The assessee, thereafter, challenged the order of the lower authorities claiming they had defaulted in law and on facts also in “disallowing its security deposit encashment claim of Rs.1,10,61,051/-” that is treated as of nature of penalty. The Revenue department put forth the contention that the lower authorities have been right in disallowing the impugned encashment of bank guarantee that is being penal in nature on the basis of non-performance of contract at assessee’s instruction.

Read Also: Not More Addition If The Documents Are Not Valid: Hyderabad ITAT

On the other hand, The assessee put forth the contention that the impugned encashment of bank guarantee is the after-effect of failure to execute its contractual obligation without involving any offence or penal component as per section 37(1) of the Act.

The Coram of S.S.Godara and Lakshmi Prasad Sahu held that the aforesaid encashment of bank guarantee has been incurred in the normal course of business rather than pertaining to any penalty element at all.

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Yash Bapna (Ex-employee)
I hold a degree in law, a diploma in mass communication, and a degree in management. Though I am a lawyer by profession, but writing has always been one of the things that I'm passionate about. View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Us on Google News

Google News

Latest Posts

New Offer for Professionals

Super Tax Offer

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

Big Offer for Tax Experts

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Genius Software