2014 (6) TMI 349 - AT - Income Tax

Unutilized CENVAT credit balance A.O. has treated it as revenue receipt - Held that - Following CIT Vs Unique Industries 2008 (5) TMI 238 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - The assessee treated it as an advance payment of excise duty paid on purchases of raw materials, consumables and capital goods - AO has treated it as revenue receipt but the issue is now fully covered in favour of the assessee - when the purchases are accounted for and debited to P & L account net of such excise duty paid on purchases, MODVAT/CENVAT credit received by the assessee already stand included in the profits of the assessee by way of reduction in purchase price debited to P & L account, thus, it cannot be added again the order of the CIT(A) cannot be interfered Decided against Revenue. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act Disallowance of excess claim of depreciation - Held that - Penalty was also deleted by CIT(A) the disallowance of deduction u/s 10B which was deleted Revenue could not point out as to how it is not applicable to the facts of the present case thus, there was no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) in respect of deletion of penalty in respect of any of these three additions/disallowances - on the date of filing of return of income for AY 2005-06, there was no disallowance or addition in AY 2004-05 and the same has happened on 24.12.2006 due to which the brought forward depreciation was reduced the claim of assessee for brought forward unabsorbed depreciation from the AY 2004- 05, penalty is not justified thus, there was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of unutilized CENVAT/MODVAT credit.
2. Legality of assessment orders passed under section 153A.
3. Deletion of penalties related to various disallowances and deductions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Treatment of Unutilized CENVAT/MODVAT Credit:
The revenue filed appeals for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2006-07, challenging the deletion of additions made on account of unutilized CENVAT/MODVAT credit. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not upholding the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had followed the judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Unique Industries and CIT Vs Ideal Sheet Metal Stamping & Pressing Pvt. Ltd., as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the issue was fully covered in favor of the assessee by these judgments. The basis was that when purchases are accounted for net of excise duty paid, the MODVAT/CENVAT credit received is already included in the profits by way of reduction in purchase price, and thus, cannot be added again. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeals for these years.

2. Legality of Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153A:
The assessee filed cross objections for the same assessment years, challenging the legality of assessment orders passed under section 153A read with section 143(3). The assessee argued that the assessments were illegal, without jurisdiction, and against the scheme of the Act as no satisfaction was recorded before the search. Furthermore, the assessee contended that the assessments should be restricted to materials and evidences indicating undisclosed income found during the search. Since none of the additions were based on search material, the orders should be quashed. However, the Tribunal noted that these cross objections were mainly in support of the CIT(A)'s order. Since the revenue's appeals were dismissed on merit, the cross objections were dismissed as infructuous.

3. Deletion of Penalties Related to Various Disallowances and Deductions:
The revenue also appealed against the deletion of penalties for the assessment year 2005-06. The penalties were related to four disallowances: excess claim of depreciation, disallowance of deduction under section 10B for the Cotton Yarn Division, disallowance of deduction under section 10B for the Kadi Unit, and disallowance of carry forward unabsorbed depreciation.

- Excess Claim of Depreciation: The CIT(A) deleted the penalty by referencing the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Glow Tech Steels (P) Ltd., where penalties were not justified for mistakes attributable to auditors.

- Disallowance under Section 10B for Cotton Yarn Division: The CIT(A) found the assessee's claim was based on a bona fide belief and auditor's certificate. The Tribunal upheld this, referencing the ITAT Mumbai's decision in Niton Valve Industries (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, which supported no penalties for such bona fide mistakes.

- Disallowance under Section 10B for Kadi Unit: The CIT(A) deleted the penalty by referencing the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd., where penalties were not justified for claims based on different interpretations.

- Disallowance of Carry Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation: The CIT(A) noted that the assessment order for the previous year was passed after the return for the current year was filed, indicating no mala fide intent. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this finding.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in all respects and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
All four appeals filed by the revenue and the three cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decisions on the treatment of unutilized CENVAT/MODVAT credit and the deletion of penalties related to various disallowances and deductions. The assessment orders under section 153A were upheld, and the penalties were found to be unjustified based on existing legal precedents.

← Previous Next →