MAHINDRA SONA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3343/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 June 2016AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee demonstrated no impact on net profit regardless of the accounting method for taxes. The tax authorities had not properly examined the assessee's reconciliation statement.

What were the facts?

The assessee followed an exclusive method of accounting for taxes. The Assessing Officer grossed up the opening and closing stock with taxes, leading to an addition. The CIT(A) reduced the addition but still sustained a part of it.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of CENVAT and VAT credit in stock valuation was justified, considering the assessee's accounting method and reconciliation statements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Bapat
For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain
Hearing: 6.6.2016Pronounced: 6.6.2016

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, AM :-

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.3.2014 passed by learned CIT(A)-5, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

The solitary issue urged in this appeal relates to addition on CENVAT credit and VAT credit u/s. 145A of the Act.

3.

We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee has been following exclusive method of accounting for accounting the taxes in the books of account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer grossed up the value of opening stock and closing stock with applicable taxes and the same resulted in addition of ` 34.04 lakhs. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) determined the impact in following inclusive method, on the profit at ` 5,41,245/- and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to sustain the same in place of ` 34.04 lakhs made by him. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

2 Mahindra Sona Limited

4.

Learned AR invited our attention to page No. 47 of the paper book and submitted that there is no impact on the profit even if inclusive method of accounting tax is followed. He submitted that the assessee, in page No. 47 of the paper book has demonstrated the same. He further submitted that the identical issue was considered in other issues by learned CIT(A) and he has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining identical types of reconciliation statement filed by the assessee and in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer did not make any addition.

5.

Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for reexamination.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee has demonstrated in the statement prepared by him that there is no impact on the net profit, if taxes are accounted either under exclusive or under inclusive method. We have noticed that the tax authorities have not examined the statement furnished by the assessee though learned CIT(A) has made certain computations and granted partial relief to the assessee. We have noticed that he has not found fault with the statement furnished by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer by duly considering reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with law after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3 Mahindra Sona Limited

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order has been pronounced in the Open Court on 6.6.2016.

More judgments on Section 145A

All 656 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →