Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (2) TMI 276 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of coal expenses based on alleged overvaluation.
3. Validity of evidence and reliance on DRI's report.
4. Relevance of CESTAT and High Court orders in related cases.

Reopening of Assessment:

The Assessee's case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the belief that income chargeable to tax had been under-assessed. The reasons included alleged non-genuine subcontract expenditure of Rs. 40 crores and inflated coal expenses of Rs. 16,07,90,522/-.

Disallowance of Coal Expenses:

The AO disallowed Rs. 16,07,90,522/- on account of inflated coal expenses, alleging that the Assessee purchased coal from intermediaries at inflated rates. The AO relied on a DRI report suggesting overvaluation of coal imported from Indonesia.

Validity of Evidence and Reliance on DRI's Report:

The Assessee argued that the disallowance was based on a preliminary DRI report without providing the Assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. The Assessee's business is regulated by MERC, and all costs are pass-through, meaning any increase in costs would be reflected in tariffs without affecting profitability. The Assessee also highlighted that the cost of coal had been accepted by MERC.

Relevance of CESTAT and High Court Orders:

The Ld. Commissioner deleted the addition, citing the CESTAT order in the case of Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Ltd, which set aside a similar order by DRI. The Bombay High Court dismissed the department's appeal as not maintainable, and the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of the department's appeal, making the CESTAT order final. The Tribunal in the Assessee's own case for A.Y. 2016-17 also deleted similar additions, relying on the CESTAT order.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Ld. Commissioner's order. It held that the AO's reliance on the DRI report was unsustainable as the show cause notice had been set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication). The Tribunal also noted that the Assessee's costs were regulated and approved by MERC, and any alleged overvaluation had no impact on the Assessee's tax liability.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/01/2024.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates