2013 (5) TMI 900 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds Assessing Officer's order in tax case involving MAT credit, doubtful debts, and more.

M/s. Banswara Syntex Ltd C/o. M/s. Kalani & Co., Versus CIT, Udaipur.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's order in a tax case involving issues such as MAT credit entitlement, provision for doubtful debts, additional ... - Issues Involved:1. MAT Credit Entitlement2. Provision for Doubtful Debts3. Additional Depreciation on Captive Thermal Power Plant4. Subsidy under TUF Scheme5. MODVAT Credit on Capital Goods6. Suspicious Transactions7. Trading Loss on Viscose FiberSummary:1. MAT Credit Entitlement:The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to recompute the book profit u/s 115JB without deducting the amount of Rs. 65,23,000/- on account of MAT Credit Entitlement. The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown current tax at Rs. 65,23,000/-, nullified by a contra-entry towards MAT credit entitlement in the profit and loss account. No provision for current income tax was made, and the provision for deferred tax was correctly added back while computing the book profits. The Tribunal held that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.2. Provision for Doubtful Debts:The CIT directed the AO to add Rs. 37,62,000/- in computing the book profit due to an amendment made by Finance Act, 2009, w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The Tribunal noted that the amendment was retrospective, and the assessee had correctly followed the law at the time of filing the return. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in Vijay Bank Limited Vs. CIT and concluded that the direction to add the entire amount was incorrect. The Tribunal held that this did not constitute an error in the assessment order.3. Additional Depreciation on Captive Thermal Power Plant:The CIT held that the assessee was not entitled to additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on the new plant and machinery as it did not manufacture or produce any article or thing. The Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in manufacturing yarn, cloth, and garments, installed a plant for captive power consumption. Citing the Madras High Court decision in CIT Vs. VTM Ltd. and the Supreme Court decision in State of A.P. Vs. NTPC, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation and set aside the CIT's direction.4. Subsidy under TUF Scheme:The CIT observed that the subsidy granted under the TUF Scheme was not reduced from the cost of new assets. The Tribunal found that no capital subsidy was received during the relevant year, and the interest subsidy was already reduced from the interest expenditure. The capital subsidy received in the next year was correctly reduced from the cost of assets. The Tribunal held that there was no error in the AO's order on this count.5. MODVAT Credit on Capital Goods:The CIT noted that MODVAT credit on capital goods was not reduced from the cost of assets. The Tribunal found that the assessee followed an accounting system where CENVAT charged on capital goods was not included in the cost of plant and machinery but was taken to the capital MODVAT receivable account. The Tribunal concluded that the amount was not required to be reduced from the cost of assets, and thus, there was no merit in the CIT's finding.6. Suspicious Transactions:The CIT directed the AO to examine the claim of loss due to fraud amounting to Rs. 43.25 lakhs in earlier years, detected and recovered in A.Y. 2009-10. The Tribunal noted that the fraud amount related to various years and was already recovered and offered for taxation in A.Y. 2009-10. The Tribunal held that this could not be considered an error in the assessment order.7. Trading Loss on Viscose Fiber:The CIT observed that the AO had not examined the genuineness of trading loss on viscose fiber. The Tribunal found that the transactions were on a cost-to-cost basis, and the AO had examined and accepted the same. The Tribunal held that the AO had adopted one of the possible views, and this did not amount to an error in the order.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order u/s 263 and restored the AO's order, allowing the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions for revision under Section 263, namely 'error in the order' and 'prejudice to the Revenue,' were not met in this case.