Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
This appeal is filed by the assessee/ appellant for A.Y. 2005-06 against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [the learned CIT (A)] dated 22nd November, 2010, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14th December, 2007, passed by the learned DCIT, 8(1), Mumbai, was partly allowed. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us, as per following grounds:-
b) That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned CIT (A) has not appreciated that as per Section 145A of the Act, value of purchase, sale, opening stock & closing stock are to be further adjusted to include amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid or incurred by the assessee in order to determine income chargeable under the head profit & gains of business and profession. Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming addition by only increasing value of closing stock as made by the learned AO.
2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned Assessing Officer, has grossly erred in making addition of ₹77,329/- on account of loss on sale of assets. Addition made is illegal and bad in law.”
The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of processing of glasses filed its return of income on 28th October, 2005 at a total income of ₹1,23,49,240/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Act. Notice was issued on 26th October, 2006.
The assessee aggrieved with the assessment order preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A). He confirmed both the disallowance and therefore, the assessee is in appeal on these two disallowances.
Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee; therefore, the issue is decided on the merits of the case. This is also so because of the reason that assessee is frequently writing letters to transfer these appeals to New Delhi, despite the fact that assessment is made by Assessing Officer at Mumbai.
By order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in company petition no. 308/10 dated 23rd March, 2011, the assessee company has merged with Gold Plus Glass India Limited and therefore, this appellate order is passed in the name of Gold Plus Glass Limited. 010. The Hon'ble president vide order dated 18th December, 2023, on the transfer request of the assessee, has rejected the application of the assessee.
The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.
The first ground of appeal is with respect to the addition of ₹560,668/-. As per tax audit report the learned Assessing Officer observed that assessee has unrealized CENVAT credit of ₹5,60,686/-. The assessee stated that this
13. According to the Provision of Section 145 of the Act, the above sum should have been included in the closing stock. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in including the above sum in the closing stock of the assessee and thereby increasing the total income. Accordingly, ground no.1 of the appeal is dismissed.
14. Ground no.2 of the appeal is with respect to the addition on account of ₹77,329/- on account of loss on sale of the assets.
We find that the assessee has debited the above sum to the profit and loss account but not added the same while computing the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer held that as the sale of the assets should be reduced from block of assets on which depreciation is claimed, this loss is not allowable. The
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.01.2024.