2018 (7) TMI 65 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of stock written-off - Held that - No doubt stocks written off in respect of raw materials is chargeable to P&L account but it is the duty of the assessee to prove beyond doubt before the authorities that such write off is raw materials which are used in the production process of final products. Since the assessee has failed to produce any kind of evidence before the lower authorities we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of the AO to consider afresh the issue in the light of claim of the assessee that stock written off pertains to raw materials. Adjustment of capital subsidy received from Government of West Bengal and re-calculation of depreciation and also treatment of excess capital subsidy received as revenue receipt - Held that - Although assessee claims to have received capital subsidy towards assets already created in the books of account no evidence has been filed before the AO or CIT(A) to prove that such capital subsidy has been received pertains to earlier period on assets already created. No doubt any capital subsidy received from the government under incentive scheme is to be reduced from the assets already acquired in earlier period - issue needs to be re-examined by the AO in the light of the claim of the assessee that capital subsidy received from state government pertains to earlier period. If the AO found that such subsidy pertains to earlier period then the AO is directed to allow deduction from opening WDV of respective block of assets. The assessee is directed to file necessary evidence to prove its claim. Insofar capital subsidy as revenue receipt we find that the AO has wrongly treated capital subsidy received from state government as revenue receipt without appreciating the basic fact that the state government has given capital subsidy @15% of total investment made in assets. When the state government has given subsidy amount of 15% of total assets created by the assessee there is no meaning for the AO to reduce it from the assets created during the current year to treat the balance amount as revenue receipts. Therefore set aside this issue also to the file of the AO to cause necessary enquiries in the light of claim of the assessee that such capital subsidy pertains to earlier period. Set aside this issue also to the file of the AO to cause necessary enquiries in the light of claim of the assessee that such capital subsidy pertains to earlier period. If the AO finds that the capital subsidy received from government pertains to earlier period then the AO is directed to allow deduction from opening WDV of the block of assets. The assessee is directed to file necessary evidence. In any case capital subsidy cannot be treated as revenue receipt.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of stock written-off.
2. Adjustment of capital subsidy against additions made during the year instead of opening WDV.
3. Treatment of a portion of capital subsidy as revenue receipt.
4. Reduction in depreciation claim due to adjustment of capital subsidy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Stock Written-off:
The assessee contended that the disallowance of ?58,62,102 towards stock written-off was erroneous. The assessee argued that the stock written-off consisted of obsolete and unusable raw materials, specifically bevel sets used in the production process of gearboxes. These items were written off due to higher frictional loss and lower surface finish, making them unsuitable for further use. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence, such as stock registers, to substantiate the claim that the written-off items were stock-in-trade. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument but noted the lack of evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO, directing the assessee to furnish necessary evidence to prove that the stock written-off pertains to raw materials. If proven, the AO is directed to allow the write-off.

2. Adjustment of Capital Subsidy Against Additions:
The assessee received a capital subsidy of ?86,64,458 from the Government of West Bengal under the Industrial Development Incentive Scheme, 2000. The subsidy was meant for the expansion of the Kharagpur factory. The AO adjusted the subsidy against the additions made during the year instead of the opening WDV, leading to a re-calculation of depreciation. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the entire subsidy was received in the current year and should be adjusted against the additions made during the year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the subsidy pertained to assets already created in earlier periods. However, no evidence was provided to support this claim. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO, directing a re-examination in light of the assessee's claim and evidence. If the subsidy pertains to earlier periods, it should be deducted from the opening WDV of the respective block of assets.

3. Treatment of Capital Subsidy as Revenue Receipt:
The AO treated ?31,63,319 out of the capital subsidy as revenue receipt, arguing that the subsidy received in excess of investment in fixed assets is revenue in nature. The CIT(A) upheld this treatment. The Tribunal disagreed, noting that the subsidy was given at 15% of the total investment in assets and should not be treated as revenue receipt. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for further inquiry, directing that if the subsidy pertains to earlier periods, it should be deducted from the opening WDV of the block of assets. The Tribunal emphasized that capital subsidy cannot be treated as revenue receipt.

4. Reduction in Depreciation Claim:
The reduction in the depreciation claim by ?6,70,013 arose due to the adjustment of capital subsidy against additions made during the year instead of the opening WDV. This issue is intrinsically linked to the second issue regarding the adjustment of capital subsidy. The Tribunal's directive to re-examine the adjustment of capital subsidy will inherently address the reduction in the depreciation claim. The AO is directed to re-calculate depreciation based on the findings regarding the period to which the capital subsidy pertains.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issues back to the AO for re-examination and directing the assessee to provide necessary evidence to support its claims. The AO is instructed to make appropriate adjustments based on the evidence provided. The Tribunal emphasized that capital subsidy should not be treated as revenue receipt and directed a re-evaluation of the depreciation claim in light of the correct adjustment of capital subsidy.

← Previous Next →