2016 (6) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heets. The assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 26.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs. 9,53,12,992/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2011 and the total income was determined at Rs. 14,56,32,809/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 27.06.2012 (in Appeal No. CAB/(A)VI-467/11-12) granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following ground : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. (i) the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....82 ITR 363 and CIT v/s Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. 239 ITR 505 it is very clear that in the case of appellant excise duty liability accrued when the demand for the same was raised by the concerned officer notwithstanding the fact that the liability was disputed by the appellant. It is also clear from the decision in the case of CIT v/s Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg.Co.Pvt.Ltd. 239 ITR 505 that treatment given in the books of account of the appellant is not relevant for allowability of deduction under IT Act. In fact, facts of the case of the appellant are identical to those in the case of CIT v/s Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg.Co.Pvt.Ltd. referred to above. Since the appellant has paid amount of Rs. 4,04,19,672/- towards excise duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....12 A.Y. 2009-10 (DCIT vs. Gujarat Borosil Ltd.) 4 similar to that of A.Y. 2008-09. We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09, while deciding the appeal of Revenue has decided the issue in favour of assessee by holding as under: "3.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that a refund of Rs. 3.71crore was adjusted against the demand raised of Rs. 4.55crore by the Excise Department which means that the demand raised by the department stands discharged to the extent of Rs. 3.71 crore. We note that the order passed by the CIT(A) had taken into consideration all the issues raised concerning the all the material aspects of the case and clear cut findi....