2017 (9) TMI 964 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Omission at the end of the AO not to treat this unutilized CENVAT credit as a part of closing stock rendered his order erroneous which is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - Held that - According to the assessee, it has not claimed as deduction as a part of purchases. It is separately debited to CENVAT credit receivable account. If that was the situation, which has been verified in the Asstt.Year 2010-11 by the ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 1.12.2014 what was the occasion for the ld.Commissioner to relegate this issue to the AO without verifying the details on merit. The AO has passed the assessment order in pursuance of 263 order which was challenged in appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) has followed order of the predecessor in the Asstt.Year 2010-11 dated 1.12.2014. Had the ld.Commissioner applied his mind and looked into the issue on merit, atleast this unnecessary exercise should have been avoided. As far as second issue is concerned, a conclusive finding have been recorded by the ld.CIT(A) in the Asstt.Year 2010-11 before the order passed under section 263 that payment of alleged gratuity was towards a approved fund. This order was not challenged. Appellant has made payment to an approved gratuity fund and therefore payment made is allowable as deduction u/s.36(1)(v) of the Act Thus we are of the view that no case is made out for taking action under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Unutilized MODVAT credit inclusion in closing stock under Section 145A.
2. Disallowance of payment to PF, EPF, and superannuation gratuity fund.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Unutilized MODVAT Credit Inclusion in Closing Stock under Section 145A:

The primary issue revolves around whether the unutilized MODVAT credit amounting to ?52,31,918/- should be included in the closing stock as per Section 145A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that a portion of this amount, ?16,72,880/-, pertains to service tax credit on various input expenditures, which was not claimed as a deduction and was already taxed. The remaining amount of ?35,59,038/- was accounted for using the exclusive method of accounting, where the CENVAT duty paid on raw materials was debited to the CENVAT credit receivable account and not included in the purchase cost. This method was verified and accepted in the previous assessment year (2010-11) by the CIT(A). The tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not dispute the assessee's explanation and should have verified these details on merit before relegating the issue back to the AO. The tribunal concluded that the Commissioner should have applied his mind and avoided unnecessary exercises, thus quashing the 263 proceedings on this issue.

2. Disallowance of Payment to PF, EPF, and Superannuation Gratuity Fund:

The second issue pertains to the disallowance of ?15,58,850/- paid towards PF, EPF, and superannuation gratuity fund, with the Commissioner arguing that these contributions were not made to an approved gratuity fund. The assessee clarified that only ?1,88,670/- was contributed towards the gratuity fund, which was approved by LIC. This issue was similarly addressed in the assessment year 2010-11, where the CIT(A) had ruled that the payment made to LIC's Recognized Group Gratuity Fund was allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(v). This ruling was not challenged and had become final. The tribunal observed that the Commissioner should have considered this conclusive finding and dropped the 263 proceedings on this issue as well.

Conclusion:

The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and quashed the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner. The tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner should have verified the details on merit and considered the conclusive findings from the previous assessment year, thus avoiding unnecessary reassessment exercises. The appeal was pronounced in court on 14th September 2017 at Ahmedabad.