2017 (1) TMI 456 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rejects Revenue's appeal, upholds CIT(A) decision on CENVAT credit disallowance.

The Asstt. CIT Vapi Circle, Vapi Versus M/s. Sunmet Industries

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order that the disallowance of CENVAT credit was not justified. The Tribunal found ... Reopening of assessment - addition made by allowing CENVAT Credit - Held that:- We find ourselves in complete agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) on merits. The CIT(A) has observed as noted supra that there is nothing on record to show that Central Excise Department has finally charged the assessee of misutilisation of CENVAT credit as alleged in the SCN. We find that the AO has not supported the allegation made in the SCN by any independent material in corroboration thereto. We also find force in the argument of the assessee that manufacture and sale of the finished goods would naturally involve corresponding purchase of raw-material. It was for the AO to establish that the imported/high seas purchase on which custom duty was paid has not been utilized for manufacture/sale of finished goods. The AO has failed on this count too. The allegation of misutilisation of CENVAT credit is thus bereft of any credible credence. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the AO in making additions towards misutilisation of CENVAT credit is devoid of merit. The CIT(A) in our view has rightly reversed the action of AO. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 1,85,49,005.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The reopening of the assessment was based on information received from the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, which indicated that the assessee had unlawfully availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,85,49,005. The Assessing Officer (AO) formed a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, thus invoking jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. The reassessment order was framed under section 143(3) read with section 147, wherein the impugned CENVAT credit was disallowed.2. Disallowance of CENVAT Credit:The AO disallowed the CENVAT credit based on a show-cause notice (SCN) issued by the Central Excise Department, which alleged that the assessee had misused CENVAT credits. The AO highlighted that the Excise Department's investigation revealed that vehicles purportedly used for transportation of goods were not found at the check posts, indicating that the goods were not transported as claimed. Consequently, the AO concluded that the CENVAT credit claimed was bogus and added the amount to the total income of the assessee.Appellant’s Arguments:The assessee contested the reassessment order on both jurisdictional grounds and merits. They argued that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that the CENVAT credit was misused. The assessee maintained that the CENVAT credit was not routed through the Profit & Loss account and thus did not affect the net profit or taxable income. They also pointed out that the Excise Department had not passed any final order confirming the misuse of CENVAT credit.CIT(A)’s Decision:The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] decided in favor of the assessee on merits, noting that the AO had not brought any independent evidence to support the allegations made in the SCN. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had not disturbed the sales and purchases reflected in the Profit & Loss account and had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts. The CIT(A) concluded that the disallowance of CENVAT credit did not translate to income and directed the AO to delete the addition.Tribunal's Analysis:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that the AO had not provided independent corroborative evidence to support the allegations in the SCN. The Tribunal noted that the manufacture and sale of finished goods would naturally involve corresponding purchases of raw materials. The AO failed to prove that the imported/high seas purchases were not utilized for the manufacture and sale of finished goods. The Tribunal found the AO’s action to be without merit and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)’s order that the disallowance of CENVAT credit was not justified and that the AO had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of misuse of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of independent inquiry and corroborative evidence by the AO, thus supporting the assessee’s contention that the CENVAT credit disallowance did not affect the taxable income.