L & T CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) 2(2), MUMBAI

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे�� सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार /PER RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार Challenging the order dated 20.03.2014 of CIT(A)-5,Mumbai the assessee has filed the present appeal.Assessee-company,carrying on business of manufacturing of construction equipment,filed its return of income on 23.09.2008,offering an income of Rs.205.81 crores. The Assessing Officer (AO)completed the assessment on 13.12.2011 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, determining the income of the assessee at Rs.214.84 crores. 2.First Ground of appeal

is about adjustment to be made on account of CENVAT credit to the value of closing stock u/s.145A of the Act. Representatives of both sides agreed that identical issue had arisen in the appeal decided by Tribunal for AY 2005

06. (ITA/ 3801/ Mum/2014, dt.9.3.2017).The Authorised Representative further stated that the assessee had made payment before due date of filing of return, that the provisions of section 43B of the Act would be applicable for deciding the issue. He referred to the case of NCR Corporation India (P) Ltd. (293CTR225). We would like to reproduce the order of the Tribunal for the AY 2005

06. (supra) and it reads as under :- “4.During the course of hearing before us,the Authorised Representative (AR) argued that assessee was following exclusive method with regard to cenvat credit,that the AO and the FAA had taken a wrong figure of Rs.16.88 crores for cenvat credit purposes,that the actual figure was Rs.23.22 crores, that the assessee had paid excise duties on various dates.He referred to the page no.1 to 12 of the paper book evidencing the payment of excise duty.He further stated that matter needs verification at the end of departmental authorities.The Departmental Representative (DR) left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.