TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.4987/Mum/2007(02-03) Revenue'sAppeal "1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts at Rs. 11,91,81,266/in computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the I. T Act. 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of provision for Director's Retirement Benefit at Rs. 2,84,53,850/in computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of Excess expenditure on Voluntary Retirement of Rs. 2,96,00,000/in computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the I TAct;" 4.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of Expenses on VRS pertaining to earlier years of Rs. 17,97,32,434/in computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the I T Act. 5.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of Expenses Capital expenditure d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the levied u/s 234B of the I TAct. I8) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of provision of Director's Retirement Benefit of Rs. 2,84,53,850/ . 19) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the sales tax subsidy is not taxable in computing the total income under normal provisions as well as in computing the total income under normal provisions as well as in computing book profit u/s 11SJB of the Act, thereby allowing assessee's claim of sales tax exemption Of Rs.S4,73,17,391/. 20) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of the deduction u/s 35DDA to the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,53,00,536/; The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. "On the facts and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payable under normal provision of the Act is NIL. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Railways / Insurance claims written off in the Profit & Loss account of Rs. 50,01,000/in computing total income under normal provisions of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming allowance of depreciation allowed on the written down value of block of assets as on 01042001 as per the department's record without considering the fact that the appellant had disclaimed depreciation in earlier years. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing depreciation on Captive Power Plant on written down value method instead of allowing the same on Straight line method. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. err (Appeals) erred in disallowing the dividend charged to the Profit and Loss Account of Rs. 51,23,59,905/ in computing total income under normal provisions of the Act. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er normal provisions of the Act was not relevant for the purpose of book profit computation u/s 115JB.Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court delivered in the case of Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. (251 ITR 15), he deleted the addition made by the AO. 2.2.Before us,the Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the AO.Authorised Representative(AR) relied upon the order of the FAA and referred to the judgment of Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd.(supra). We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that in the facts of the case of Echjay Forgings(supra)were that in computing the book profits of the assesseecompany under section 115J of the Act,the AO had disallowed the deductions claimed by the assessee on account of payment of wealth-tax,provisions for doubtful debts, gratuity, bonus and amounts debited to the profit and loss account in respect of foreign exchange rate difference, on the ground that the above items were to be added back to the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account under the Explanation to section 115J(1A) .The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the Department under section 115J were imperm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal in assessee's own case in AY. 1990-91(ITA No. 2361/Mum./95).He further relied upon the cases of National Hydro Electric Power Corporation(45DTR 117),Hewlett Packard India (P.) Ltd.(314 ITR 55l),Bechtel India (P) Ltd.(2 DTR 145)and Dresser Valve India (P) Ltd.(30 SOT 495) We have perused the material and following our order for Ground no.1 we uphold the order of the FAA who had decided the issue in pursuance of the judgment of the jurisdictional high Court. Ground no.2 ,raised by the AO,stands dismissed. 4.Ground no.3 also is about computing of Book Profit u/s.115JB of the Act with regard to expen -diture incurred by the assessee on Voluntary Retirement in of Rs. 2,96,00,000/-.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the the assessee had added expenditure on Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the AY.s. 2001-02 & 2002-03 debited to the profit and loss account in computing total income under normal provisions.Since it was added in normal computation,the addition was also made by the AO while computing the Book Profit. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court,delivered in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd.(255 ITR 273),the FAA deleted the addition made by the AO. 4.1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subject matter of the ground no.6.The AO noted that the sales during trial run production of new Wadi Plant of the assessee was reduced from assets capitalised in the books of accounts. In comput - ing total income, the same was claimed by adding it in the block of assets.Since it was added in normal computation,so the addition was also made in Book Profit by the AO. 7.1.In the appellate proceedings,the FAA held that the treatment in the books of accounts was is as per guidance note issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India,that same was not disputed by the AO,that the addition made by him was not tenable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra). We find that the addition made by the AO does not fall under any of the clauses specified under the Explanation to section 115JB of the Act.Therefore, in view of the decision of the Apollo Tyres Ltd.(supra),we dismiss the ground raised by the AO. 8.Next ground deals with Allowance of expenditure on temporary structures at customer's site , amounting to Rs. 49,94,501/-.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee had incurred expenditure in setting up tem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the temporary structures on site, which is not owned by the assessee has no relevance once the job at the site is over/completed. Identical view was taken for Assessment Year 200001, thus, in the absence of any contrary facts we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A). Respectfully,following the above we decide ground no.7against the AO. 9.Next ground of appeal is with regard to deletion of the disallowance made in respect of 43B of the Act of Rs. 5,01,292/-.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee had deposited Employee's Contribution to ESIC of Rs. 502/ -for the month of March'02 with a delay of 12 days,that it had deposited Employer's Contribution to Pension fund of Rs. 5,00,790/- for the month of April 0l on 14-05-2001 and that the cheque was realized on 09-06-2001.Considering these facts the made a disallowance of the disputed sum on the ground that there had been delay in payment of the amount by the assessee. 9.1.In the appellate proceedings,the FAA deleted the disallowance of Employer's Contribution to Pension fund of Rs. 5,00,790/ - in view of See. 43B.However, disallowance on account of delay in Employe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he scheme to quantify the financial aid,is not a payment,directly or indirectly, to meet any portion of the "actual cost".The assessee also placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd.(88 ITD 273 - Mum.SB) wherein it has been held that the object for which the subsidy is given is decisive.The assessee also referred to the case of M/s Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd.(ITA No.2293/Kol/2005). After considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order,the FAA held that the subsidy so received was on capital account and was an incentive for industrialisation. The said contention is also supported by the decision in the case of P.I. Chemicals Ltd. (Sura) Reliance Industries Ltd. (Supra) and M/s Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd.(supra).Further,similar issue has been allowed in favour of the appellant by my own order in appeal no.CIT(A)-I/IT/87/04-05 for AY.2001-02.Hence, the addition made by the A.O. is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed. 10.2.The DR supported the order of the AO and stated that nature of the subsidy was not looked in to properly by the FAA. .The AR stated that the AO's appeal on identical issue had been rejected by the ITAT, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 20,50,00,000/-,that in computation of total income the assessee had added back the entire disallowance u/s.40(a) of Rs. 35,82,33,019/-, that while framing the assessment order the AO had again added back the deferred tax liability resulting into double disallowance. We find that the FAA had,after verifying the fact,deleted the addition and therefore in our opinion there is no infirmity in his order.So,confirming his order ground raised by the AO is rejected. 12.Next ground deals with deletion of the disallowance of discarded capital assets and Cost of dismantling(Rs.1,33,95,494/-).The AO found that the assessee had offered the receipts from scraped old and unserviceable assets to tax and had claimed the expenditure incurred to facilitate such earnings.He disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee.Following the order of earlier years, FAA deleted the additions made by the AO. 12.1.Before us,representatives of both the sides agreed that the identical claim for earlier years in Assessee's own case had been allowed by ITAT in AY.s.1991-92-(ITA/1105/Mum/97),1992- 93-(ITA/3961/Mum/97),1996-(ITA/3783/Mum/00),1997-98(ITA/3298/M/0l)and1999-00, (ITA 7594/M/04)and that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter of Guffic Chem has held as under: "Payment received as noncompetition fee under a negative covenant was always treated as a capital receipt till the assessment year 200304. It is only vide the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from April 1, 2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable (See section 28(va)). The Finance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year compensation received by the assessee under noncompetition agreement was a capital receipt, not taxable under the 1961 Act. It became taxable only with effect from April 1, 2003. It is well settled that a liability cannot be created retrospectively. In the present case, compensation received under the noncompetition agreement became taxable as a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt by specific legislative mandate vide section 28(va) and that too with effect from April 1, 2003. Hence, the said section 28(va) is amendatory and not clarificatory. Respectfully,following the above decisions,we decide the of non compete fee against the AO. Now,we would take up the issue of Compensation for termination of the contract.Before us, the AR stated that the compensation for terminati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be made with the net profit as shown in the P&L a/c. One of the moot questions relevant to the issue before us is whether the AO has power to alter the net profit ? In our considered opinion, yes. We agree that it is settled law that AO has the power to alter the net profit. In the following two cases, the AO can rewrite the P&L a/c i.e. to say that AO should recalculate the net profit and then follow the adjustments of MAT as usual : (1) If it is discovered that P&L a/c is not drawn up in accordance with Part II and Part III of Sch. VI of the Companies Act. However, the AO cannot disturb the net profit as shown by the assessee where there are no such allegations, fraud or misrepresentation but only a difference of opinion as to whether a particular amount should be properly shown in the P&L a/c or in the balance sheet, (2) If accounting policies, Accounting Standards are not adopted for preparing such accounts and method, rates of depreciation which has been incorrectly adopted for preparation of P&L a/c laid before the annual general meeting. Except for the above two cases, the AO has no power to alter the net profit shown by the companies for the purpose of computing the book ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act" were made for the purpose of empowering the assessing authority to rely upon the authentic statements of accounts of the company. It was held that while doing so, looking into the accounts of the company, the AO has to accept the authenticity of the accounts with reference to the provisions of the Companies Act which obligates the company to maintain its accounts in a manner provided by the Companies Act and the same to be scrutinized and certified by the statutory auditors and will have to be approved by the company in its general meeting and thereafter to be filed before the RoC which has a statutory obligation also to examine and satisfy that the accounts of the company are maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act. It was held that if these procedures were complied with, it was not open to the AO to rescrutinize this account and satisfy himself that these accounts have been maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. The same view was reiterated in the case of Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 102: (2008) 6 DTR (SC) 1: (2008) 300 ITR 251(SC) by the apex Court. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the accounting policies, Accounting Standards and the method and rates of depreciation adopted for preparing the book profits under s. 115JB shall be the same as adopted for the purpose of preparing such accounts including P&L a/c and laid before the company at its annual general meeting. Therefore whatever accounting policy adopted for the purpose of preparing the P&L a/c laid before the company should be adopted for computing book profits under s. 115JB. Capital gains on sale of shares were included in computing the profits presented before the shareholders and the same should also be included in computing book profits under s. 115JB. The Kerala High Court in the case of N.J. Jose & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (supra) has held that capital gains, even though exempt under the normal provisions of incometax under s. 54E cannot be excluded while computing book profits. They have observed : ".. We are unable to accept the contention of the assessee, because the assessment under Chapter XIIB on book profits is a selfcontained code. The scheme thereunder is to adopt the P&L a/c of the assessee prepared in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not entitled to the exclusion claimed. In other words, s. 54E has no application in the computation of book profit under s. 115J." xxxxxxxxx The Delhi Court in the case CIT vs. Sain Processing & Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. (2009) 221 CTR (Del) 493: (2009) 17 DTR (Del)215 has held that "Company'Book profit under s.115J'Depreciation not debited to P&L a/c'It is obligatory under cl. 3(iv) of Part II of Sch. VI to the Companies Act to give information with regard to depreciation which has not been provided for, along with the quantum of arrears'Once this information is disclosed in the notes to the accounts, it would clearly fall within the ambit of the Explanation to s. 115J'Notes to the accounts form part of the P&L a/c by virtue of subs. (6) of s. 211 of the Companies Act and thus the depreciation which is not charged to P&L a/c but is disclosed in the notes to the accounts would come within the ambit of the expression 'show in the P&L a/c' occurring in Explanation to s. 115J'Further, the net profit of a company cannot be determined till all the items of income and expenses as well as depreciation are taken into account'Depreciation, even if not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions contained in subs. (5) of s. 115JB of the Act to contend that since all other provisions of this Act shall also apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in the s. 115JB of the Act, the assessee is entitled to reduce the longterm capital gain exempted under s. 47(iv) of the Act. For this proposition the assessee relies on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Frigsales (supra). In that case, it is noted by the Tribunal in para 3.2 of its order that the capital gain earned by the assessee being exempt under s. 50 of the Act will not form part of the normal taxable income, and when the receipt is not in the nature of taxable income, it cannot be taxed as income under s. 115JA of the Act. The Tribunal applied the provisions of subs. (4) of s. 115JA, which provides that "save as otherwise provided in this section (s. 115JA), all other provisions of the Act shall apply", in taking a view that all other provisions of the Act would continue to operate and, therefore, the exempt income under s. 50 would remain exempted as per the provisions of subs. (4) of s. 115JA. The Tribunal further observed that in s. 115JA, a new subs. (4) has been brought on the statute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequently all other provisions of the Act providing the manner of computation of total income under normal provisions of the Act cannot be applied while computing book profit under s. 115J or 115JA or 115JB, as the case may be. We do not find any difference between s. 115J or 115JA or 115JB insofar as methods of computation of book profit as provided in Explanation appended thereto are concerned. The Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Frigsales (India) Ltd. (supra) has not applied the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) for the reason that these decisions were rendered in the context of provisions of s. 115J of the Act, but the fact remains that the propositions laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra) have been reiterated and relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (supra) which has been rendered in the context of s. 115JA of the Act. As per subs. (5) of s. 115JB of the Act, which reads as "save as otherwise provided in this section, all ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....net Systems & Services Ltd. (supra) had clearly laid down a law that the AO has only limited power of making increases and reductions to the net profit shown in the P&L a/c except as provided for in the Explanation to s. 115J or 115JA of the Act. In the light of the discussions made above, it is clear that the AO, while computing the book profit of a company under s. 115JB of the Act, has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having being properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act, and the AO thereafter has the limited power of making increases and reductions as provided for in the Explanation to s. 115J of the Act. The capital gain in question is exempt under s. 47(iv) of the Act but the same is not covered by any of the cls. (i) to (vii) of Expln. (1) to s. 115JB of the Act. xxxxxxxxxxxxx 29. The next issue for consideration is the character of exemption granted under ss. 47(iv), 47(v) and 50. These are not total exemptions but in the nature of deferment of tax. The exemption granted under s. 47(iv)/47(v), in respect of transfer from/to holding company to/from its wholly owned subsi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of the Act are intended to be deducted from the book profits also the same is specifically provided. Deductions under ss. 80HHC, 80HHD, 80HHE,80HHF and deductions under ss. 80IA, 80IB were specifically excluded from the computation of book profits at various times. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and in view of the above reasons, we upheld the order of learned CIT in holding that the longterm capital gain is to be included in the net profit prepared under the Companies Act and the same is not deductible from the net profit for the purpose of computing book profit under s. 115JB of the Act. We further hold that merely because the longterm capital gain is exempt under s. 47(iv) of the Act under the normal provision of the Act, it is not correct to say that it is also to be reduced from the net profit for the purpose of computing book profit under s. 115JB of the Act when the Explanation to s. 115JB does not provide for any deduction in terms of s. 47(iv) of the Act. In other words, we hold that s. 47(iv) of the Act has no application in the computation of book profit under s. 115JB of the Act. Thus from a reading of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Tribunal deliver -ed in the earlier years.Following those orders,the FAA allowed the claim made by it with regard to additional gratuity on provision basis. 17.1.Before us,representatives of both the sides agreed that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee in the earlier AY.s.We find that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the AO with regard to the identical ground(AY.90-91-ITA/2361/M/95,AY.92-93-ITA/ 3961/M/97,AY.93-94-ITA/6901/M/97,AY.96-97-ITA/3783/M/00,AY.97-8/ITA/3298/ /0l,AY.1998-99,ITA/6289/M/03,AY.99-00-ITA/7594/M/04,AY.00-01-ITA/9613/M/04).It is also found that the decisions of the ITAT in AYs 90-91 to 93-94, AYs 96-97,AY.1998- 99,AY.1999-00 & AY.2000-01were not challenged before the High Court and hence same attained fainalty.Considering the above,we decide ground no.16 against the AO. 18.Ground no.17 is deals with deletion of interest levied u/s 234B of the Act.The AO had levied interest u/s.234B on short payment of advance tax over assessed tax.The FAA,in the appellate proceedings,granted relief to the assessee. Before us,the DR stated that issue could be decided on merits.The AR relied upon the case of Jupiter Bio-Science Ltd.(352IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was made on the basis of actuarial valuation,that it represented a liability in praesenti that was to be discharged at future date.He referred to the case of Bharat Earth Movers(245ITR428).He also stated that similar claim was allowed by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal for the AY.1990-91. 19.2.We find that the issue of a certain business liability was deliberated upon and adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers and it was held that if a business liability had definitely arisen in the accounting year and was capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.Following the principle laid down by the Apex court in the above case and the decision of the Tribunal delivered for the AY.1990-91,we decide ground no.18 against the AO. 20.Next ground of appeal about Sales Tax Subsidy in computation of book profit u/s 115JB as well as in computing total income under normal provisions of the Act and the amount involved is Rs. 84,73,17,391/-. During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the following units of the assessee had re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade in AY.2001-02 to 2005-06 except for the AY.2002-03,that due to inadvertent mistake it could not make the claim.Considering the above facts the FAA allowed the claim. 21.1.Before us,the DR argued that the assessee itself had admitted that claim was not made in the original return filed.The AR stated that by way of an additional ground the assessee had requested the FAA to allow the deduction that was otherwise allowable. There is no doubt that the assessee was entitled to the deduction and it had not claimed the same in the return.It is also a fact that before the FAA it lodged its claim.The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pruthivi Brokers and Shareholders P.Ltd.(349ITR336)has held as under: "An assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. The appellate authorities have the discretion to permit such additional claims to be raised. The appellate authorities have jurisdiction to deal not merely with additional grounds, which became available on account of change of circumstances or law, but with additional grounds which were available whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome prima facie adjustment on 07.10.1997. Thereafter, notices under sections 143(1) and 142(2) of the Act came to be issued and the petitioner came to be assessed under section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 31.03.1999. The AO by his order held that though the total income of the assessee was Rs. 2,11,81,620, the assessee was liable to pay tax on the total income of Rs. 5,13,86,320 on the ground that in accordance with Circular No. 549, para. 5.12,dated 31.10.1989 the assessed income shall not be less than the returned income.The assessee challenged the order before the Hon'ble High Court.Deciding the writ petition the Hon'ble Court held as under: "the circular in question refers to assessments which are to be made under section 143(3) of the Act. The circular directs that in a particular type of cases, i.e., in scrutiny cases under section 143(3) of the Act, the income can neither be assessed at a figure lower than the returned income nor the loss assessed at a figure higher than the loss nor further refund given except what was due on the basis of the returned income. Thus, by issuance of the circular, the quasijudicial officer is directed to assess cases of particular natur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s we decide the last additional ground against the AO. ITA NO./3787/Mum/2009: 26.Effective ground is about deletion of unutilised MODVAT credit added to the closing stock without making similar addition in opening stock.While passing order u/s.143(3)of the Act,the AO added back the MODVAT credit attributeable to the closing stock of Rs. 8, 88,04,704/-by applying the provisions of section 145A of the Act.He also increased the opening stock by Rs. 9,34,67,023/-.In the appellate proceedings,the FAA directed the AO to delete the addition of closing MODVAT of Rs. 8.88 Crores.In appeal against the said order,the department did not challenge the direction given by the FAA to the AO,while filing appeal before the Tribunal.the AO did not grant relief to the assessee,while giving effect to the order FAA,in respect of issue of MODVAT.The assessee challenged the order of the AO again before the FAA.Considering the facts of the case the FAA again directed the AO to delete the addition of MODVAT attributable to closing stock.In the present appeal before us,the AO has challenged the direction of the FAA given in the second round. 26.1.During the course of hearing before us,the DR fairly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee's factory and to add it to the rate of Rs. 1-4-6 per maund in order to ascertain the market value and give any relief that may be due to the assessee. An application under section 66(1) for a reference was made but it was withdrawn and the order of the Tribunal became final. The assessee applied to the AO to give effect to the directions of the Tribunal, but the officer in his letter dated 24.03.1955, held that no relief could be given to it. Ignoring the clear directions of the Tribunal,the AO did not ascertain the cost of transportation from the farms to the factory instead of the average transport charges from the centres to the factory.The assessee applied to the Judicial Commissioner of Bhopal for the issue of a writ to compel the officer to carry out the directions of the Appellate Tribunal. The Judicial Commissioner found that the officer had acted arbitrarily and in clear violation of the directions given by the Tribunal, but proceeded to consider the correctness of the Tribunal's order and held that there was no manifest injustice done to the assessee. On appeal to the Supreme Court held as under: "...by his letter dated March 24, 1955, the Incometax Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate authority,he must raise the issue in the higher forum under the provisions of the law,but he cannot refuse to/follow the directions.Considering the above facts,we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the AO is devoid of any merit and he has taken undue advantage of the judicial process. We are also of the opinion that there was utter failure on the part of the supervisory authorities in whole episode.Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income tax,Mumbai,so that the directions of the FAA are given due respect by the officers of the field formation and that such frivolous appeals are not filed in future. ITA No./4987Mum/2009: During the course of hearing before us,the AR did not press grounds no.1,3,4,6,7 and 8.Hence, same stand dismissed. 27.Ground no 2.deals with non exclusion of profit on sale of investments in computing Book Profit u/s.115JB of the Act,amounting to Rs. 9.12 Crores.During the year under appeal the assessee had earned net profit on sale of investment and had credited it to P & L A/c.It raised an additional ground before the FAA,who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 27.1.Before us,the ....