Tribunal allows assessee's appeal, directs AO to verify CENVAT credit adjustment & confirms deduction under section 80IB.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeals, directing the AO to verify specific conditions regarding the adjustment of CENVAT credit and confirming the allowance of deduction under section 80IB for the respective assessment years.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Change in Method of Accounting and Adjustment of CENVAT Credit.
2. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Change in Method of Accounting and Adjustment of CENVAT Credit:

The primary issue revolves around the assessee's change in the method of accounting from the exclusive method to the inclusive method to comply with section 145A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) added back Rs. 1,25,34,122/- to the assessee's income, arguing that the change was arbitrary and not in compliance with section 145A. The AO noted that the assessee did not route the excise duty through the Profit & Loss Account, thus questioning the legitimacy of the accounting change.

The CIT(A) partly sustained the AO's addition, confirming Rs. 39,74,140/- while deleting Rs. 85,59,982/-. The CIT(A) acknowledged the bona fide nature of the change but held that the adjustment should have been made in the earlier years when section 145A came into force. The CIT(A) reasoned that the balance of Rs. 39,74,140/- represented liabilities from earlier years and could not be adjusted in the current year.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal found the change in the method of accounting to be bona fide and in line with section 145A. It noted that the inclusive method required accounting for excise duty in opening stock, purchases, sales, and closing stock. The Tribunal emphasized that the change was revenue-neutral over time. It directed the AO to verify whether the assessee had forgone the MODVAT credit as per Excise law and rules and whether the amount had already been subjected to tax in earlier years. The Tribunal concluded that the amount of Rs. 39,74,140/- should be allowed if these conditions were met.

2. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB:

The second issue concerns the disallowance of the deduction under section 80IB amounting to Rs. 59,66,478/- for AY 2005-06 and Rs. 5,45,795/- for AY 2006-07. The AO rejected the claim, stating that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing activities. The AO's analysis indicated that the activities carried out by the assessee, such as crimping, twisting, sizing, and warping, did not constitute manufacturing.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting the absence of proof of manufacturing activities and reliance on the auditor's report, which categorized the business as "Trading in Fabrics."

The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had a Small Scale Industry (SSI) unit and was registered under the Excise Department, incurring substantial expenses on electricity, fuel, and plant and machinery, indicating manufacturing activities. It referred to the CBDT circular and various judicial precedents, which recognized activities like twisting and crimping of yarn as manufacturing. The Tribunal also invoked the principle of consistency, noting that the assessee had been allowed the deduction under section 80IB in earlier years under scrutiny assessments. It concluded that the assessee's activities amounted to manufacturing and allowed the deduction under section 80IB for both AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeals, directing the AO to verify specific conditions regarding the adjustment of CENVAT credit and confirming the allowance of deduction under section 80IB for the respective assessment years.

---