2016 (5) TMI 961 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(4) - Held that - If the valuation of closing stock made by the ld. CIT(A) is accepted, there is a net loss as computed by the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(4) would be only of academic interest Addition u/s 68 - Held that - The additions made by the A.O, being difference between the profit credited by the assessee and the loss determined by the A.O as per his own valuation of closing stock is illogical and without any reasoning. Merely because as per the computation of the A.O, there is a loss and the assessee has shown profits in its statement of account, the difference would not become unexplained cash credit which can be added u/s. 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned addition, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Excise Duty refund - capital or revenue receipt - Held that - As we find that in earlier years, the Excise Duty refund has been treated as a capital receipt which has been confirmed by the Hon ble High Court of J & K which has been followed by the First Appellate Authority; therefore, no interference is called for.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Cross appeals by assessee and revenue against the same order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2009-10.

Analysis:
1. The revenue contested the deletion of addition made under section 68 of the Act due to unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating the A.O's valuation of closing stock was erroneous, leading to an overvaluation. The correct value was determined, resulting in a net loss for the assessee, making the deduction under section 80IB(4) irrelevant.

2. The revenue challenged the allowance of deduction under section 80IB(4) despite the assessee not employing 10 or more workers. The CIT(A) found the assessee met all mandatory conditions but denied the deduction due to a net loss, rendering the claim irrelevant.

3. The revenue disputed the deletion of addition under section 80IB(3) and 80IB(13) based on the A.O's analysis that the profits were unnatural. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating overvaluation of closing stock does not disentitle the deduction under section 80IB(4).

4. The revenue objected to allowing deduction on excise duty refund, arguing it was not part of manufacturing activity. The CIT(A followed precedent treating it as a capital receipt, which was upheld.

5. The revenue raised concerns about admitting additional evidence without A.O's comments. The CIT(A) revalued closing stock, determined a net loss, and directed the A.O to reassess accordingly, denying the deduction under section 80IB(4) due to the loss.

6. The Tribunal found the A.O's additions illogical, as the difference between profit and loss did not constitute unexplained cash credit under section 68. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition and confirmed the treatment of excise duty refund as a capital receipt.

7. Given the net loss, the Tribunal deemed the deduction under section 80IB(4) irrelevant for the year. The issues related to the deduction in subsequent years were left open for consideration based on the respective facts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals by the revenue and the assessee, emphasizing the irrelevance of the deduction under section 80IB(4) due to the assessed net loss for the year.