THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD., DHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 348/IND/2017Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 January 2023AY 2012-13Bench: MS.SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It noted that the issue was well-settled in favour of the assessee in previous years, and there was no change in facts or law.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added excise duty to the valuation of closing stock under Section 145A. The assessee argued that they followed an 'exclusive method' of accounting, and the inclusion of excise duty did not impact the net profit. The CIT(A) deleted the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether excise duty should be included in the valuation of closing stock when the assessee follows an exclusive method of accounting, and if Section 145A mandates such inclusion irrespective of the accounting method.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: MS.SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Fadnis, CA and AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR, Shri Manoj Fadnis, CA and AR
Hearing: 15.12.2022Pronounced: 30.01.2023

आदेश/O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 27.02.2017passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-III, Indore[“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.02.2016 passed by learned DCIT-1(1), Indore[“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year[“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

“(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law by deleting the addition of Rs.2,68,60,595/- made by the AO on account of under valuation of closing stock.

Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Assessment year 2012-13 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering i. That as per section 145A, the valuation of closing stock is required to be done in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee and further adjusted to include in it any tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid or incurred by the assessee. ii. That the provision of section 145A has overriding effect on section 145. iii. That whatever may be accounting standard, the same cannot override the statute.

3.

The appellant reserves his right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal

on or before the date, the appeal is finally heard for disposal.”

2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused.

3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee-company filed return of income of relevant AY 2012-13 on 29.11.2012 which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment and statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued. Finally, the Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 144C after making certain additions, one of those additions was on account of inclusion of excise duty of Rs. 2,68,60,595/- in the valuation of closing stock u/s 145A. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first- appealand succeeded. Now, being aggrieved by the order of first-appeal, the revenue has come in this appeal before us.

4. By means of various grounds, the only grievance of revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 2,68,60,595/- made by Ld. AO.

5.

Ld. AR representing the assessee submits that the Ld. AO has invoked section 145A and come to conclude that while computing the valuation of closing stock, the assessee had not included the component of excise duty. However, the Ld. AO has overlooked the fact that the assessee is following “exclusive method” of accounting and the section 145A prescribes “inclusive

Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Assessment year 2012-13 method”. Ld. AR submits that whatever method is applied, there would be no impact on the net profit of assessee and this proposition is well-settled in numerous judicial rulings as well asassessee’s own cases of earlier years. Drawing our attention to the past-history of assessee, the Ld. AR submits as under:

(i) Consolidated order dated 20.06.2016 of ITAT Indore in TPA No. 615/Ind/2010 for AY 2006-07 and TPA No. 547, 548 & 738/Ind/2014 for AY 2005-06, 2008-09 and 2009-10:

ITAT, Indore allowed assessee’sstand in principle but, however, directed the Ld. AO to verify the workings. In pursuance thereof, the Ld. AO passed orders for AY 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009- 10, all dated 21.07.2016, copies of which are placed at Page No. 117 to 136 of the Paper-Book, wherein the Ld. AO has finally made no addition being satisfied with the stand of assessee. As a matter of fact, the Ld. AR has also pointed out that the revenue filed next appeals, against the Orders of ITAT Indore, to Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in to 133/2016 whereupon the Hon’ble High Court, vide its order dated 02.11.2017, was pleased in not admitting the revenue’s appeals.

(ii) Order dated 31.01.2018 of ITAT Indore in for AY 2011-12:

ITAT Indore dismissed the departmental appeal and allowed the assessee’s stand on the same issue.

6.

Ld. DR fairly accepted the submissions of Ld. AR.

7.

We thus note that the impugned issue is well-settled in favour of assessee in these Orders of earlier years. We also observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has also allowed relief to assessee by following the very same Orders of earlier years. In absence of any change in facts or law, we do not find any Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Assessment year 2012-13 valid reason to deviate from the view taken in these Orders, hence we find no infirmity in the action of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we subscribe to the order of first-appeal passed by Ld. CIT(A) and uphold the deletion. The revenue fails in all grounds raised in present appeal.

8.

Resultantly, this appeal of revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963 on 30/01/2023. Order pronounced in the open court on ….../……/2023.

More judgments on Section 145A

All 656 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →