2020 (9) TMI 453 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - Deduction towards interest on excise duty - only contention raised by the ld. CIT(D.R.) is that the CIT(Appeals) has passed a very cryptic order, wherein he has allowed a substantial relief to the assessee on the issue under consideration without giving any cogent or convincing reason - HELD T HAT - CIT(Appeals) would have been right to entertain the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of interest on excise duty pertaining to earlier years in the year under consideration keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal in its order 2015 (6) TMI 675 - ITAT KOLKATA passed in assessee's case for A.Y. 2009-10 and the fact that the assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer for the year under consideration under section 143(2) had got merged as a result of search with the proceedings under section 153A, which were open. Inspite of taking note of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court 2012 (4) TMI 707 - DELHI HIGH COURT on the basis of which the liability of the assessee on account of interest in question was taken as crystallized by him in the year under consideration, the ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to take note of a very relevant and material fact that the interest charged by Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission was reduced by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the liability of the assessee on account of the said interest after adjusting the amount already paid by the assessee was reduced. This clearly shows the non-application of his mind by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the relevant and material facts having a direct bearing on the quantum of liability of the assessee on account of interest in question - remit the matter back to him for deciding the same afresh by passing a well discussed and well reasoned order after giving the assessee a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. - Appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a fresh claim can be allowed in proceedings under section 153A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the interest expenditure on central excise duty crystallized in the assessment year 2013-14.
3. Adequacy of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Fresh Claim in Section 153A Proceedings

The assessee argued that the claim for deduction on account of interest on excise duty was made pursuant to the ITAT's direction to allow the claim in AY 2008-09 or AY 2013-14 when the matter reached finality. The search and seizure operation on 22.09.2015 led to the initiation of proceedings under section 153A, which abated the regular assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14. The assessee contended that the claim was not a fresh one but was already made before the search, and due to the merger of abated proceedings with section 153A proceedings, it should not be treated as a fresh claim. The CIT(Appeals) agreed, stating that since the assessment was pending at the time of search, the claim could be entertained as it was not a case of completed assessment.

Issue 2: Crystallization of Interest Expenditure in AY 2013-14

The CIT(Appeals) held that the interest expenditure crystallized in AY 2013-14 as per the Delhi High Court's order, making it allowable in that year. The Revenue contended that the liability accrued during AY 2008-09, as mentioned in the ITAT's order dated 10.06.2015. However, the CIT(Appeals) directed the AO to allow the interest expenditure in AY 2013-14, considering the final determination of liability by the Delhi High Court in 2012.

Issue 3: Adequacy of CIT(Appeals) Order under Section 250(6)

The Revenue argued that the CIT(Appeals) passed a cryptic order without providing cogent or convincing reasons, violating section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires a written order stating points for determination, the decision thereon, and reasons for the decision. The Tribunal found merit in this contention, noting that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the reduction of interest liability from ?25.87 crores to ?19.56 crores by the Delhi High Court and the adjustment of ?13 crores already paid by the assessee. This oversight indicated non-application of mind to relevant and material facts affecting the quantum of liability.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) on the limited issue of the interest expenditure on excise duty and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a well-discussed and well-reasoned order after giving the assessee a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. The appeal filed by the Revenue was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.