Tribunal corrects assessment error, directs AO to inquire on Terminal Excise Duty refund

The Tribunal found the assessment order partly erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the Terminal Excise Duty refund issue. The appeal was partly allowed, directing the AO to reframe the assessment after proper inquiries. The CIT's order was upheld to this extent, with the Tribunal setting aside the assessment on the Terminal Excise Duty refund issue. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary inquiries before reassessment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged underassessment of income due to excess credit of VAT refund receivable.
2. Alleged underassessment of income due to Terminal Excise Duty refund receivable.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Underassessment of Income Due to Excess Credit of VAT Refund Receivable:
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) identified an error in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue was related to the VAT refund receivable amounting to Rs. 5,94,33,275 as on 31.03.2013, which increased by Rs. 1,67,16,017 from the previous year. The assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,36,96,051 for VAT refunds, resulting in an excess credit of Rs. 30,19,963. The CIT contended that this excess credit led to an underassessment of total income by Rs. 30,19,963.

In response, the assessee argued that the VAT refund receivable was an expenditure on account of Input VAT paid on purchases, not included in the cost of purchases debited to the profit & loss account. The assessee maintained that the entire amount was treated as an asset and not as income. The CIT, however, rejected this explanation, stating that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries into the matter, making the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

2. Alleged Underassessment of Income Due to Terminal Excise Duty Refund Receivable:
The CIT also identified an increase in Terminal Excise Duty refund receivable by Rs. 70,63,536 without any corresponding credit entry in the profit & loss account, resulting in an underassessment of total income by Rs. 70,63,536. The assessee explained that the amount represented excise duty paid on exported goods, which was refundable and not considered as expenditure in the profit & loss account. The CIT found this explanation unsatisfactory, asserting that the AO did not make necessary inquiries into the matter.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had raised specific queries regarding the VAT refund during the assessment proceedings, and the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations, which were verified from the books of account. Therefore, it was not a case of lack of inquiry by the AO on the issue of VAT refund.

However, regarding the Terminal Excise Duty refund, the Tribunal observed that there was no evidence of any inquiry made by the AO. The lack of inquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT’s order to set aside the assessment on this issue, directing the AO to reframe the assessment after proper inquiry.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was partly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the lack of inquiry by the AO on the issue of Terminal Excise Duty refund. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the AO was directed to reframe the assessment concerning the Terminal Excise Duty refund after conducting proper inquiries. The Tribunal upheld the CIT’s order to this extent and allowed the appeal partly.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the open Court on January 17, 2020.

---