2018 (2) TMI 1787 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA - Allocation of cost of husk between the steam generation and power plant - AO estimated the cost of consumption of husk at 55% of the total husk consumed in relation to the power generated by the power plant - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that allocation of husk cost at 10% is reasonable. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Acceptance of separate books of accounts by the assessee.
2. Allocation of cost of husk between Rice mill and Power Plant business.
3. Filing of form No.10CCB report during scrutiny proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Acceptance of separate books of accounts
The revenue challenged the acceptance of the assessee's plea regarding the maintenance of separate books of accounts. The CIT(A) accepted the plea, leading to the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the reasonableness of the allocation made by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on the cost of steam being the key factor to allocate between the power plant and the rice mill. The Tribunal found no logic in segregating the cost and supported the assessee's allocation at 10%.

Issue 2: Allocation of cost of husk
The dispute centered around the allocation of husk cost between steam generation and power plant operations. The assessee had initially allocated 10% of husk to power generation, which was challenged by the assessing officer. The AO estimated the cost of husk consumption at 55%, leading to a different profit computation. However, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal based on previous Tribunal orders and directed the allocation of husk at 10%. The Tribunal, after detailed consideration, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the allocation of husk at 10% was reasonable and justifiable.

Issue 3: Filing of form No.10CCB report
The revenue raised an issue regarding the filing of form No.10CCB report during scrutiny proceedings, which was not discussed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed this ground as infructuous since it did not emanate from the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of discussion on this issue in the CIT(A)'s order and the admission by the Ld. D.R. during the appeal proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the allocation of husk expenditure at 10% as reasonable. The Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the allocation rationale and previous Tribunal orders supporting the assessee's position.