Rule 46A compliance and double taxation principles barred a separate addition for EPCG-linked government grant credit.

Admission of additional evidence at the first appellate stage did not infringe Rule 46A because the EPCG licence documents and working papers were already before the Assessing Officer and no fresh material was relied on for the appellate decision. The government grant credited in books for EPCG-related customs duty savings was also not separately taxable, as the related asset cost had already been adjusted for tax purposes and depreciation computed on that basis. A further addition would have taxed the same economic effect twice, so the deletion of the addition was sustained on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the first appellate authority violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by admitting additional evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer; (ii) whether the amount credited as government grant arising from EPCG-related customs duty savings was taxable as income, or whether its addition resulted in a double addition despite corresponding tax treatment of depreciation.

Issue (i): whether the first appellate authority violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by admitting additional evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The record showed that the documents relating to the EPCG licences, computations and related working were already part of the material placed before the Assessing Officer and were considered in the assessment proceedings. The appellate authority did not base its decision on any fresh material introduced for the first time at the appellate stage. Accordingly, the complaint of breach of Rule 46A could not be sustained.

Conclusion: No violation of Rule 46A was established; the objection to admission of evidence failed.

Issue (ii): whether the amount credited as government grant arising from EPCG-related customs duty savings was taxable as income, or whether its addition resulted in a double addition despite corresponding tax treatment of depreciation.

Analysis: The grant amount was credited in the books in compliance with Ind AS presentation requirements, while for tax purposes the relevant capital asset cost had already been reduced in line with the treatment of concessional duty under the Income-tax Act. The amount represented an accounting credit linked to fulfilment of export obligation and was treated as tax-neutral in the computation. Since the assessee had already adopted the lower asset cost and depreciation on that basis, a separate addition of the credited amount would amount to taxing the same economic effect twice. The appellate authority's deletion of the addition was thus supported on merits.

Conclusion: The amount was not separately taxable as such government grant income, and the addition was rightly deleted.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed both on the procedural objection and on the merits, and the deletion of the addition was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accounting credit is made only to comply with financial reporting standards but the corresponding tax treatment has already been given effect in computing depreciation or actual cost, the amount cannot be separately added again if it would result in double taxation of the same economic adjustment.

---