9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-paginatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) That the provisions of the section 145A require that only actual payment or incurring of excise duty and other taxes that can be added to the closing stock. d) That the Appellant had paid a sum of ₹ 7350000/- as excise Duty in Nov 2006 which was a payment against the excise liability including excise duty on the closing stock as on 31-3- 2006 which should have been allowed against the adjustment of excise duty made by the Assessing Officer in the valuation of the closing stock under sec 43B of the I.T. Act 1961 as the same was paid before the due date for filing of the return as required by sec 43B. 3. The issue in this appeal is that the A.O., on the basis of the Annual report, noticed that the Notes forming part of the acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of section 43B. The CIT(A) in his order has considered only portion in the CENVAT credit, gave relief out of the addition of ₹ 34,39,994/- to the extent of ₹ 26,30,059/- stated to be payment of excise duty on 10.04.2006 and confirmed an amount of ₹ 8,09,935/-. Assessee, eventhough aggrieved on the amount of ₹ 8,09,935/- raised ground No. 1 on the issue of making addition by the A.O. under section 145A of ₹ 34,39,994/-. 4. During the course of hearing the learned counsel however, did not press ground No. 1 on the legal issue and restricted the arguments to the addition sustained by the CIT(A) ignoring the evidence on record. It was submitted that the assessee paid a sum of ₹ 73,50,000/- as exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord. The assessee in the Annual Report itself stated that they are following consistent method of accounting of accepting the liability at the time of clearance of goods. Accordingly a Note was left clearly indicating that there is no effect on the profit. Whether the assessee is following exclusive method of accounting or inclusive method of accounting, necessary adjustments are to be made under section 145A. The A.O. ignoring the submissions made by the assessee made the addition just because there was a Note to the accounts. Before the CIT(A) the assessee has submitted all the evidences which were placed before the A.O. including further evidences as sought by the CIT(A) to justify that no addition can be made on this issue. The CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) gave partial credit as the order is not a speaking order. Since the A.O. and the CIT(A) had ignored the submissions placed on record about the discharge of tax liability and the allowance thereon under the provisions of section 43B, we are of the view that there is no need to restore the matter to the file of the A.O. as suggested by the learned D.R. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, we have examined the issue and found that assessee satisfies the conditions. Accordingly the A.O. is directed to allow the balance amount of ₹ 8,09.935/- sustained by the CIT(A). 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th April 2011. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
