TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of value added tax refund receivable. (2) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I erred in law as well as in facts in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce a sum of Rs. 17,14,590 from the total income of the assessee which the Assessing Officer did not allow as deduction (DEPB credit) in computing the total income of the assessee. The first ground against the deletion of addition made under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act. The facts relevant are that the assessee-company filed return of income on October 28, 2007. Earlier, the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and by way of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), assessment was complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evious year ended with March 31, 2007, i.e., relevant for the assessment year under appeal before us. In that profit and loss account the value added tax receivable is shown as on March 31, 2007. In the computation of income sheet annexed thereto assessee has shown value added tax received for the assessment years 2006-07, 2009-10 and 2010-11; and they were rightly offered to tax under section 41(1). As per the details filed it is made clear that the assessee is offering the value added tax received in the relevant assessment years whenever it was received. The consistency of accounting should not be disturbed unless it is shown that the assessee deliberately suppressed the income. That being the liability attached and the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be adjudicated by the Commercial Tax Officer after the assessee has made the claim. The learned Commercial Tax Officer can pass an order accepting or rejecting the claim. In this case, it is amply made clear that the order has not been passed for the alleged benefit has to be charged under section 41(1). Learned counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting. The right to refund is not accrued to the assessee during the relevant previous year. Therefore, learned counsel by relying on the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order prayed for rejection of the ground of the Revenue. This prayer of the asses- see is justified as the Assessing Officer himself has ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and loss account shows that export benefit was receivable (DEPB) to the rune of Rs. 17,14,590.35. In schedule 9 to the balance-sheet ended with March 31, 2007 the export benefit (DEPB) realisation is shown as Rs. 27,83,209.74 under the head "Other income". It is amply clear that the assessee has not sold DEPB credit during the relevant year. Therefore, the assessee is justified in excluding the same, i.e., sum of Rs. 17,14,590 as to the extent it was not sold during the assessment year under appeal, i.e., 2007-08. It is further explained that the other year DEPB credit for the financial year 2007-08, i.e., subsequent years and 2008-09 was offered to tax, respectively. This will strengthen the case. Respectfully, following the decision of ....