9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2006-07. This treatment is inconsonance with the ratio decidendi in Berger Paints India Ltd. [ 2004 (2) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] We note that similar issues arose in subsequent year in assessee s own case for AYs. 2009-10, 2008-09 and 2007-08 and the Tribunal held that the treatment carried out by the assessee in respect of the excise duty as legally tenable. We note that in identical case the decision in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. [ 2013 (6) TMI 533 - ITAT KOLKATA] was upheld by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in [ 2014 (1) TMI 1844 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and the CIT(A) has relied on the Tribunal s order in ordering deletion of the addition made by the AO. Therefore, we do not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 along with the reasons recorded for proceedings u/s. 147 was issued. Before the AO, on behalf of the assessee a detailed submission vide letter dated 03.03.2014 was submitted and it was reproduced by the AO in his assessment order. The explanation submitted by the assessee was not found tenable by the AO, and, therefore, he observed that since the deduction of excise duty on closing stock was already allowed in the P L account, further deduction of the excise duty on closing stock in the computation of income u/s. 43B of the Act is not allowable and accordingly, he added back the amount of Rs.276.13 crores to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has held as under: I have perused the AO's or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 43B of the IT Act, 1961. It is noted, that this issue was examined by Kolkata bench of Tribunal in ITA No.1640IKoI12012 in the case of DCIT Cir-I, Kolkata Vs. Exide Industries Ltd A. Y. 2006-07, in which addition for similar ground had been made. In its order dated 19.04.2013, the tribunal had, following its own order in the earlier assessment years, deleted the disallowance with the following observation: We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the material available on record. On careful perusal of facts and circumstances of the case leading to disallowance u/s 43B of the Act by hypothetical holding a view that the claim of the assessee becomes double deduction has not been interpreted correctly by the AO for the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble High Court. In view of the same, the addition made by the A.O. by way of disallowance of excise duty payment amounting to Rs. 270,06,83,951/- is deleted. The relevant Para of the order of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Exide Industry (ITA No. 158/2013) vide order dated 20.01.2014 is as under.- The Ld. Advocate for the appellant fairly submitted all the points urged by the revenue in this appeal are now covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court or of the Tribunal itself. In view of this matter, there is nothing for us to examine. The Appellant s case is squarely covered by the Exide Industry s case. Therefore, following the jurisdictional High Court s order which in turn had followed the order of the Apex Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
