Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 223/2012 . . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant . Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr.Standing . Counsel . versus . . . EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through: Ms.Shashi M. Kapila with Mr.Pravesh . Sharma, Advs. . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 13.04.2012 . . . Revenue by this appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ?Act?) impugns order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Exxon Mobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2003-04. . Two additions were subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. The first addition was on account of disallowance of Rs. 81,99,692/- towards provision made for advertising and publicity expenses. The said addition was made pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act dated 28.03.2008. The aforesaid order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act dated 28.03.2008 was set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.04.2009. The decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by this Court in ITA No. 248/2010 decided on 05.07.2011. We, therefore, need not examine and go into this aspect. . The Assessing Officer had also invoked Section 147/148 of the Act and had made an addition of Rs. 49,48,000/- on account of disallowance of write-off of inventory, observing that the assessee could not explain why the difference between physical stock and book stock had arisen. The claim of the respondent-assessee was that the difference in inventory was written off on the basis of the actual physical closing stock in the depots and the closing stock as per assessee?s books of account. . The CIT (Appeals) deleted the said addition on two grounds. He examined the matter on merits and found that the assessee is a joint venture between the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Mobil Petroleum Company Incorporated. The assessee was engaged in the business of importing, blending and marketing branded lubricants. The company had to set up a lubricant blending facility in Uttar Pradesh. However, before the blending facility could come up, it was utilizing facilities owned by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The lubricants were supplied to the depots of both the respondent-assessee and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. In these circumstances, there was no accurate reconciliation of the stock. Subsequently, when actual physical stock inventory was undertaken the difference between the stock mentioned in the books and the physical stock was noticed. After referring to the details, first appellate authority deleted the addition holding that in the present case . there was difference in the inventory recorded in the books and the actual physical stock. The reconciliation resulted in the difference and the assessee was justified in writing off Rs. 49,48,000/- in view of the difference in the actual stock and the stock recorded in the books. The CIT (Appeals) has discussed the aforesaid aspect in great detail including the manner in which the stock was transferred for sale to both the assessee and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. . The CIT (Appeals) also observed that the Assessing Officer was not right and should have furnished and given ?reasons to believe? for reopening to the assessee. As noticed above, in the present case the assessment proceedings were re-opened under Section 147/148 of the Act. The assessee had repeatedly asked for ?reasons to believe? by different letters but Assessing Officer contrary to law did not furnish and give the said reasons. The CIT (Appeals) made adverse comments about the conduct of the Assessing Officer and held that it is a case of ?mere change of opinion? and this is not permitted and allowed. . Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal on merits as well as on the finding that jurisdictional pre-conditions for reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act were not satisfied. Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on both grounds. Tribunal has agreed with the findings on merits given by the CIT (Appeals) with regard to write off of inventory. On the second ground it agreed that the Assessing Officer had failed to supply reasons for reopening and has observed that this renders the re-assessment process invalid. We need not examine the second aspect in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the first ground deleting the addition on merits. We may however notice that the Revenue in this appeal has not enclosed copy of the reasons to believe. It also appears that before the Tribunal the reasons to believe were not furnished. . We have referred to and discussed the findings of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The findings are factual. The Assessing Officer had not observed or stated that the shortage of stock was due to clandestine sale etc. . In view of the aforesaid observations, we do not think any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . APRIL 13, 2012/mb . . . $ 10 . . .