Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Puducherry, in & 134/CIT(A)-PDY/2016-17 dated 30.06.2017 for the AY 2013- 14.
Smt.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri S.Venugopalan, CA, represented on behalf of the assessee.
ITA No.2236/Mds/2017 :- 2 -:
At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issues in the appeal was squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in dated 31.12.2015 for the AY 2011-12, wherein it has been held as follows:
We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The ld. AR submitted that method of closing stock valuation of cost of production after deducting the income from the above components has been considered by the assessee for the past several years and the Department cannot disturb in the middle. In our opinion, the assessee has been following the system of accounting by deducting the income from power, scrap, interest on FD, dividend and others from the cost of production. First of all to arrive at the cost of value of closing stock, these components are not the income generated from the business activity carried on by the assessee. In other words, the income from the above components are not assessed under the head income from business and it is assessed as income from other sources. When it is assessed as income from other sources, it cannot be considered as component of cost of production for determining the value of closing stock. The ld. AR relied on the following judgments for the proposition that consistency to be followed in income-tax proceedings:
United Commercial Bank v. CIT (240 ITR 355)(SC) 2. CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. (312 ITR 254)(SC) 3. Merck Ltd. v. DCIT (2 ITR (Trib)-OL 629 (Mumbai) 4. CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (360 ITR 82) (Allahabad)
In our opinion, each assessment year is an independent assessment of unit and the wrong method of accounting followed by the assessee cannot be appropriated. In our opinion, the above components are not income from the business of the assessee, the same cannot be considered for the purpose of valuing the closing stock by deducting from cost of production.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
4. We have considered the rival submissions.
5. As it is noticed that the issues were squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2011-12, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate
ITA No.2236/Mds/2017 :- 3 -:
Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.