AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... r.w.s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 08/10/2013 concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The assessee has also filed cross-objection in the Revenue's appeal supporting the action of the CIT(A). 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 1,02,17,252/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s.145A of the Act on account of CENVAT credit. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee-company filed its return of income for AY 2008-09. In the assessment year framed under s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,02,17,252/- to the total income of the assessee by invoking section 145A of the Act. The AO declined to agree with the contention of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, there won't be any effect on total profit i.e. such an exercise is revenue neutral exercise and also the ratio of various Alpanil Industries (supra), Gujarat Fluoro Chemical Ltd. (supra) etc., no such addition is warranted on merit as well as on legal proposition. In the case of Gujarat Fluoro Chemical ltd. (supra) as relied on by appellant, Hon'ble IT AT Ahmedabad has already considered the example so narrated by A.O.. I am also inclined by appellant that Ld. C1T(A)VI, Ahmedabad in appellant's own case for A.Y. 09-10 (i.e. Subsequent Astt. Year) on the similar issue and similar facts vide order dt. 02/12/2013 (appeal no. ClT(A)VI/DClT Cir.1/160/11-12) held as follows: " I have considered the submissions made by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India Ltd., 26 SOT 141 (Mumbai) relied on by the learned A.R., it was held that "CIT(A) was justified in directing the A.O. to make corresponding adjustments in the opening inventory also where A.O. added back CENVAT credit to closing stock only". The assessment year involved was 2001-02. in the case of L & T Demag Plastics Machinery (p) Ltd. Vs. ITO 124 TTJ (Mumbai) 490 it was held that "in view of mandatory provision of sec. MBA, is bound to make adjustments for any Cenvat actually paid or incurred by the assessee in relation to purchases and sale of goods and inventory; matter remitted back to the A.O. for computing assessee's income after making adjustment such". The assessment year involved was 2001-02. in the case of DCIT vs. Hite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted." 3.6 Ahmedabad Tribunal in its decision dt. 06.01.2012 in the case of Jalaram Ceramics Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-4 in ITA No.2187/Ahd/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06, held:- '"5. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, it was found that the assessee had maintained a separate account for the excise duty and that the assessee had paid the excise duty leviable on finished good stock before the filing of the return. The excise duty was not debited to P & L Account and it was not claimed as an expenditure. For this proposition case law cited is CIT vs. Parry Confectionery 299 ITR 321. The next argument is that the excise duty is leviable and includable in the clos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of VAT. As contended by the learned A.R., such an exercise is revenue neutral. 3.8. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the decisions referred to above, impugned addition is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed." The appellant also relied on various other case laws i.e. Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad order dt. 13/07/2012 in the case of Raj Ratna Metal Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 3297/Ahd/2011) which was in reference to order u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. CIT on this issue itself. Though in the case of appellant, such order u/s 263 of the Act is appealable only before Hon'ble ITAT hence no comments can be made for such order. But, the ratio of Hon'ble ITAT order in this case considered the issue on merit also. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Ld.AR for the assessee and Ld.DR for the Revenue, we note the assertions made on behalf of the assessee that assessee has consistently followed exclusive method of accounting with due certification by the tax auditor for recording the inventory which is subject matter of dispute in valuation. We also notice the plea of the assessee that adopting 'inclusive method' of accounting will not alter the resultant profits and such change of accounting will be a revenue neutral exercise over a period of time. We also notice that similar issue raised against the assessee in its own case for AY 2009-10 was also reversed by the CIT(A). Having regard to these facts, we concur with the view taken by the CIT(A). It is not gain saying that unutilized....