2012 (4) TMI 465 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80 HHC on export incentives received by the assessee as a supporting manufacturer in the same manner as in the case of direct exporter, treating the supporting manufacturer at par with the direct exporter revenue appeal - Held that - Court being the jurisdictional Court has already decided the issue raised in Special Leave Petition against the revenue and the instant appeal will follow the suit in favour of assessee. Addition of Rs. 8,38,77,635/- made by the AO on account of difference in the value of stock as per stock statement submitted to the Bank and that as per the books of account Held that - The mere fact that value furnished to the bank is without any detail or verification by the bank may not constitute the basis to make additions - there are categorical finding that the assessee- respondent had maintained broad details of the stock, its consumption, production and closing balance and the accounts have been maintained on day to day basis which have been accepted by the Excise and VAT authorities in favour of assessee. Depreciation - depreciation @ 50% on the purchase of machinery under TUF Scheme as against depreciation @ 25% allowed by the A.O.- Held that - The machinery has been purchased as per TUF Scheme, making the assessee- respondent eligible for deduction at higher rate - the nature of stock purchasing is a finding of fact and revenue- could not advance any argument warranting admission of the appeal in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act regarding deduction on export incentives for supporting manufacturers.
2. Addition of Rs. 8,38,77,635/- on account of difference in stock value.
3. Allowance of depreciation @ 50% on machinery purchased under TUF Scheme.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act concerning the deduction on export incentives for supporting manufacturers. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 80HHC for the export incentives received by the assessee as a supporting manufacturer, treating them at par with direct exporters. The revenue-appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the provisions of Section 80HHC (1A) and (3A) were being ignored. However, it was noted that a similar issue had been decided against the revenue in a previous case, and the deduction was rightly availed by treating supporting manufacturers at par with direct exporters.

Issue 2:
The second issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 8,38,77,635/- on account of a difference in the value of stock. The Assessing Officer made this addition based on discrepancies between the stock value as per the stock statement submitted to the bank and the value as per the books of account. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that no addition could be made if the difference in stock quantity was not proved, and the stock was neither pledged nor verified by bank officials. The assessee provided various documents to support the valuation of stock, including VAT assessment records and invoices. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate books of account and rejecting the value given to the bank without proper verification.

Issue 3:
The final issue concerns the allowance of depreciation at a rate of 50% on machinery purchased under the TUF Scheme. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal agreed that the machinery purchased by the assessee under the TUF Scheme qualified for higher deduction and depreciation at 50%. The nature of the machinery purchase under the TUF Scheme was considered a factual finding, and no substantive question of law emerged to warrant admission of the appeal on this issue.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as the findings were based on factual evidence, and no substantial legal questions arose from the issues raised by the revenue-appellant.