2017 (1) TMI 1103 - HC - Income Tax

Inclusion of excise duty in the closing stocks of finished goods - Held that - The assessee had paid excise duty on the raw material and, therefore, the price of that was to be included in the closing stock.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Assessment year 2001-2002
2. Legality of CIT (Appeals) order under Section 260A
3. Addition of excessive royalty under Section 40A (2) (b)
4. Treatment of disallowance under Section 40A (2) (b)
5. Inclusion of excise duty in closing stocks of finished goods
6. Inclusion of excise duty in the cost of raw material for finished goods

Analysis:
1. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2001-2002 raised questions regarding the correctness of the ITAT's decision concerning the CIT (Appeals) order. The court examined whether the ITAT properly considered all facts and circumstances in its decision. The questions no. 1 to 4 were decided in favor of the assessee based on a previous decision in the case of the same assessee.

2. The issue of addition of excessive royalty under Section 40A (2) (b) was also raised. The ITAT confirmed the CIT (Appeals) decision to delete the addition of royalty paid, citing a previous decision. The court upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, as there were no infirmities in the CIT (Appeals) order.

3. Another aspect was the treatment of disallowance under Section 40A (2) (b) in the assessee's hands and the income shown by another party. The court examined whether this constituted the assessment of one income at two places. The ITAT's decision was upheld, confirming the finding of the CIT (Appeal) in treating the disallowance.

4. Regarding the inclusion of excise duty in closing stocks of finished goods and the cost of raw material for finished goods, the court considered the decisions of the authorities. The court found that the assessee had paid excise duty on the raw material, leading to the inclusion of its price in the closing stock. The court upheld the concurrent findings of both authorities in favor of the assessee against the department.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee based on the analysis of the various issues raised. No costs were awarded in this matter.