2015 (3) TMI 357 - AT - Income Tax

Inflated cost of products claimed - excessive cost of production - by first claiming it as a part of cost of production of manufactured goods and also as raw material removed as such, shown under the head sales - CIT(A) deleted the addition Held that - There is no difference between the figures of consumption of raw material as well as sales between different schedules, as referred to above. Therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has very rightly observed that the Assessing Officer without bringing any material on record, purely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, gave a finding which had no basis. The assessee had claimed Cenvat credit on the raw material removed as such and no Cenvat had been claimed on the sale of other manufactured goods as per the Cenvat credit rules. At page 110 of the paper book the assessee has given extract of Cenvat credit rules, in which it is pointed out that Cenvat credit may be utilised for payment of an amount equal to Cenvat credit taken on inputs if such inputs are removed as such or after being partially processed. Learned counsel also referred to various invoices to demonstrate that all the invoices contained inputs sold as such without processing, which entitled the assessee to claim Cenvat credits. We find that no discrepancy has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer in these documents filed by the assessee. The findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have not been controverted. - Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee inflated the cost of production by claiming it as a part of the cost of production of manufactured goods and also as raw material removed as such, shown under the head "sales".
2. Whether the reconciliation of materials consumed and sales was accurately reflected in the financial statements.
3. Whether the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs. 76,77,037 on account of excessive cost of production was justified.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Inflated Cost of Production
The primary dispute was whether the assessee inflated the cost of production by claiming it both as part of the cost of production and as raw material removed as such under "sales". The assessee was engaged in manufacturing environmental control devices and provided after-sales services, replacing worn-out components with spare parts purchased from vendors. The assessee classified these components under three heads: "raw material sold as such," "components," and "traded goods." The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the cost of production was inflated by Rs. 76,77,037 because the same materials were claimed as consumed and sold, leading to suppressed closing stock value. However, the assessee clarified that the term "raw materials removed as such" was adopted from the Central Excise Act and referred to components sold after testing and processing, not raw materials consumed in production. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) found that the sales of all items were duly recorded and the cost of materials was properly booked under appropriate heads, rejecting the AO's allegations.

Issue 2: Reconciliation of Materials Consumed and Sales
The AO required the assessee to furnish details of material consumed and its reconciliation with the tax audit report. The assessee provided detailed reconciliations for sales, closing stock, and material consumption, demonstrating no discrepancies. The CIT(A) noted that confusion arose from the terminology used in the financial statements, but the sales and cost of materials were accurately recorded. The CIT(A) emphasized that the sales of all items were reflected in the audited accounts and the cost of materials was correctly booked. The AO's claim that the material used for consumption could not be sold was contrary to the facts, as spares were required for maintenance and after-sales services.

Issue 3: Justification of AO's Addition
The AO added Rs. 76,77,037 to the assessee's income, alleging inflated cost of production. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO's addition was based on conjectures and surmises without any material evidence. The CIT(A) highlighted that the accounts were audited, and statutory records were subject to verification by excise authorities. The gross profit ratio of 54.53% was verified and certified by tax auditors, and there were no significant fluctuations compared to previous years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the AO did not verify the stock records and the assessee's claims were substantiated by invoices and excise records.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order that the assessee did not inflate the cost of production and the reconciliation of materials consumed and sales was accurate. The AO's addition of Rs. 76,77,037 was not justified, as it was based on unfounded allegations without proper verification of records. The order was pronounced in the open court on July 18, 2014.

← Previous Next →