2011 (5) TMI 583 - AT - Income Tax

Addition to closing stock on account of unutilized cenvat credit - Disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) - Held that - CIT(A) extracted the order of his Predecessor in assessee s own case for earlier years wherein it was stated that procedure prescribed in section 145A is mandatory but while applying procedure prescribed therein value of opening stock, purchases, sales as well as closing stock are required to be adjusted, in which event there is no impact on profit - Decided in the favour of assessee Bad debts claim - Held that - Assessee has already offered sale proceeds as income in the earlier year and therefore sum written off in this year is allowable as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act - Decided in the favour of assessee Deduction u/s 40A(2)(b) - Held that - CIT(A) has given categorical finding that there is no evidence on record to prove that excess payments were made, so as to invoke provisions of section 40A(2)(b). No evidence whatsoever was placed on record by DR to contradict the findings of CIT(A). in assessee s own case for the earlier years wherein on identical circumstances disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)(b) was deleted - Decided in the favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of closing stock with unutilized cenvat credit under section 145A.
2. Allowance of bad debt under section 36(2)(i) for margin money deposit.
3. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) for labor charges paid to sister concern.

Valuation of Closing Stock with Unutilized Cenvat Credit:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Mumbai dealt with the issue of valuation of closing stock concerning unutilized cenvat credit under section 145A. The Assessing Officer sought to add Rs. 4,69,459 to the closing stock, alleging that the unutilized modvat balance was not considered. The assessee argued that adjustments to closing stock should also impact purchase/sale values and inventory, resulting in no change in the end profit. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had previously deleted a similar addition for the assessee in an earlier year, emphasizing that the procedure under section 145A is mandatory but does not affect profits. As the revenue failed to challenge this finding, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the revenue's appeal.

Allowance of Bad Debt for Margin Money Deposit:
Regarding the allowance of bad debt under section 36(2)(i) for a margin money deposit, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 25,84,994, contending that the assessee did not prove the debt was bad. The CIT(A) reviewed the case and found that the amount was already treated as income in a previous year, making it deductible under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Citing the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in a specific case, the CIT(A) allowed the deduction. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the revenue's failure to provide evidence contradicting the CIT(A)'s findings.

Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) for Labor Charges:
The issue of disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) for labor charges paid to a sister concern was also addressed. The Assessing Officer's disallowance was overturned by the CIT(A) due to the lack of evidence proving excess payments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the absence of material to challenge the findings. Relying on past decisions in the assessee's favor and the lack of contradictory evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on all grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions in favor of the assessee. The judgment provided detailed analysis and interpretations of relevant tax provisions, emphasizing the importance of substantiating claims and complying with statutory procedures.